To link to the entire object, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed the entire object, paste this HTML in websiteTo link to this page, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed this page, paste this HTML in website

Critical success factors for the North Carolina Community College System

Critical success factors for the North Carolina Community College System

North Carolina Community College System
Planning & Research Section
April 1999
1999
CRITICAL
SUCCESS
FACTORS
FOR THE
NORTH CAROLINA
COMMUNITY COLLEGE
SYSTEM
Tenth Annual Report
NC Community College System • Caswell Building • 200 W. Jones Street • Raleigh, NC 27603- 1379
Telephone: 919/ 733- 7051 • Fax: 919/ 733- 0680
1999 CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS
FOR THE
NORTH CAROLINA COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM
Tenth Annual Report
Planning & Research
Keith Brown
Associate Vice President
Terry Shelwood, Associate Director
Institutional Assessment
Dr. Larry Gracie, Associate Director
Institutional Effectiveness
Dr. Xiaoyun Yang
Coordinator of Research Projects
Brenda Splawn
Research Technician
Vivian Barrett
Office Assistant
North Carolina Community College System
Published by
April 1999
iii
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 1
BACKGROUND AND DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................ 2
CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS MATRIX ................................................................... 4
FUTURE PROSPECTS ................................................................................................... 5
FACTOR I: STUDENT SUCCESS.................................................................................. 7
Measure A: Number of Students Returning from Previous Quarters................................................ 8
Measure B: Progress of Basic Skills Students .......................................................................... 11
Measure C: Number of GEDs and AHSDs Awarded Compared to the Number of
Dropouts Statewide ........................................................................................... 16
Measure D: Performance of Transfers After Two Semesters........................................................ 19
Measure E: Rate of Success on Licensure Exams...................................................................... 23
Measure F: Program Completion Rates .................................................................................. 39
Measure G: Passing Rates for Remedial Courses ...................................................................... 41
Measure H: Passing Rates for " General Education" and " Related" Courses..................................... 42
FACTOR II: RESOURCES .......................................................................................... 43
Measure A: Institutional Salaries as a Percent of the Southeastern Regional Average ....................... 44
Measure B: Student/ Faculty Ratio......................................................................................... 49
Measure C: Participation in Staff Development Programs: Tier A ............................................... 50
Measure D: Currentness of Equipment .................................................................................. 53
Measure E: Percent of Libraries Meeting American Library Association Standards.......................... 55
Measure F: System Funding/ FTE ......................................................................................... 57
iv
FACTOR III: ACCESS................................................................................................. 59
Measure A: Enrollment of High School Dropouts; Handicapped; Disadvantaged; Single
Parents; Nontraditional High School Diploma Earners; Inmates .................................. 60
Measure B: Number Served by Type Through Basic Skills Programs and Percent of Target
Population Served ............................................................................................. 65
Measure C: Number and Percent of Dropouts Annually Who are Served by Basic Skills
Programs ........................................................................................................ 69
Measure D: Percent of Students Receiving Financial Aid and Amount of Aid Compared
with Cost of Attendance ..................................................................................... 72
Measure E: Percent of Population in Service Area Enrolled ........................................................ 74
FACTOR IV: EDUCATION CONTINUUM.................................................................. 77
Measure A: Number and Percent of Recent High School Graduates Enrolled in
Community College Programs ............................................................................. 78
Measure B: Number of and Enrollment in Cooperative Agreements with High Schools .................... 80
Measure C: Percent of Tech Prep Students Enrolling in a Community College................................ 83
Measure D: Number and Percent of Students in the UNC System Who Attended a
Community College........................................................................................... 85
FACTOR V: WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT............................................................ 87
Measure A: Number of Employers and Trainees Served by: New and Expanding
Industry, Focused Industrial Training, Small Business Centers,
Apprenticeship Programs.................................................................................... 88
Measure B: Number of Workplace Basic Skills Sites and Number of Students Being
Served ............................................................................................................ 91
Measure C: Employer Satisfaction with Graduates ................................................................... 93
Measure D: Employment Status of Graduates.......................................................................... 96
v
FACTOR VI: COMMUNITY SERVICES..................................................................... 99
Measure A: Number of Courses Offered and Students Enrolled Through Community
Services ( Avocational, Practical Skills, Academic and Recreational)........................... 100
Measure B: Enrollment of Senior Citizens............................................................................ 102
Measure C: Support of Community Services ( Use of Facilities by Outside Groups; Support of
Civic and Cultural Activities)............................................................................. 104
FACTOR VII: PROGRAM MANAGEMENT/ ACCOUNTABILITY ........................... 107
Measure A: Annual Educational Program Audit Summary C Number Audited and Percent
of System Instructional Budget Cited for Exceptions ............................................... 108
Measure B: Number and Percent of Programs Reviewed .......................................................... 111
Measure C: Number and Percent of Eligible Programs Accredited or Reaffirmed .......................... 112
CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS FOR THE
NORTH CAROLINA COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM
Tenth Annual Report
April, 1999
INTRODUCTION
This tenth annual report on the critical success factors for the North Carolina Community
College System is one of several System accountability tools. The data presented in this
report are indicators of the health of the System, the extent to which the System is addressing
the needs of the state, and the success of the System as measured by student outcomes.
Where possible, data covering a five- year period have been presented to indicate trends
relative to the measures.
The original intent of the critical success factors report was to present data that would
measure the performance of the System. As the years have progressed, however, the report
has been modified to include institutional data on certain measures. In presenting institutional
data, no attempt has been made to rank colleges relative to performance on measures due to
the differences in the nature of the colleges and the quality of the data currently being
collected. Instead, in presenting institutional data, the colleges have been grouped according
to total full- time equivalent ( FTE) students and listed within each group in ascending order by
FTE.
In 1993 the General Assembly passed a special provision on accountability. The special
provision mandated that the State Board of Community Colleges review the critical success
factors and measures to establishing performance standards for those measures that would
indicate colleges' progress in addressing System goals. An accountability task force was
established during the summer of 1993 and began the process of reviewing the critical success
factors and measures and establishing performance standards. Performance standards for
certain critical success factors measures have been adopted.
Over the years, experience with the critical success factors and their measures, as well as
modifications in the factors and measures, has resulted in improved data collection and
reporting. While improvements have been made, there still remain some problem areas.
Emphasis will continue to be placed on developing standard definitions for certain measures
and for insuring the systematic collection of data by all colleges.
As in previous years, a description of a factor is provided at the beginning of each section of
the report. In presenting the data for each of the measures, background information on the
measure is provided along with the methodology of data collection. Following the data,
recommendations for improvements to the measure or for further analysis are given.
2
CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS
BACKGROUND AND DEVELOPMENT
Critical success factors have been defined as " the key things that must go right for an
enterprise ( in this case, the North Carolina Community College System) to flourish and
achieve its goals." The concept of critical success factors was developed at the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, Sloan School of Business for application in a business setting, but it
is applicable to any organization. The effort to identify these " key things" enables the
organization to focus its efforts. Thinking through appropriate measures for the factors
insures that the organization will examine its performance. Thus, critical success factors are
both a planning and an evaluation/ accountability tool.
USES FOR CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS
n Accountability
n Development of Strategic Goals
n Improvement of Programs and Administration
Measurements of the attainment of critical success factors are an important part of the
accountability system in use in the Community College System. A number of tools are in
place and in use by the State Board. The colleges are required to conduct a planning process
that includes goal- setting and evaluation of progress toward those goals. Other accountability
mechanisms include curriculum standards, review of institutional plans and programs, program
and financial audits, program monitoring and accreditation.
In its 1989 session, the North Carolina General Assembly adopted a provision ( S. L. 1989; C.
752; S. 80) which mandated that:
A The State Board of Community Colleges shall develop a > Critical Success
Factors = list to define statewide measures of accountability for all community
colleges. Each college shall develop an institutional effectiveness plan, tailored
to the specific mission of the college. This plan shall be consistent with the
Southern Association of Colleges and Schools criteria and provide for
collection of data as required by the > Critical Success Factors = list. @
The colleges, in turn, were granted a greater degree of flexibility in deciding how to use their
state funds.
3
This special provision is neither the first nor the last state initiative linking flexibility in the use
of funds with required accountability measures. Its requirements leave in the hands of the
State Board and the colleges the identification of the key factors that will be measured and the
specific approach that will be taken to measure them. The measurement of these factors
provides a way of showing how well the System is doing its job as assigned by law and how
well the System is addressing the goals set by the State Board of Community Colleges.
The critical success factors were developed by the State Board to measure the System, not
individual colleges. The state totals and averages do provide a benchmark for the colleges to
measure their efforts and institutional data on selected measures are presented in this report.
Still, the critical success factors compiled for assessing the performance of the System will not
be exactly suitable for measurement of any institution. For example, the percentage of
students in the University of North Carolina System who attended a community college is a
measure that helps System leaders evaluate our System's progress over time and compare our
System with others, but it cannot be meaningfully calculated for individual institutions.
Especially in these times when budgets are very tight, the performance of individual colleges
on measures such as currentness of equipment and meeting Association of College and
Research Libraries standards may reflect the results of hard choices made by individual
administrators, and not be inherently any better than the choice made by another institution.
Some measures are so important to any real attempt to assess success that their absence
compromises the result. Yet, some of these measures are not possible within the present
capacity of the System to measure. In the initial year, a commitment was made that since
resources for data collection at the campus level were already strained; no measures requiring
additional surveys or data collection at the college level would be selected. Last year we
began surveying the colleges for a small amount of data, and we have made some
improvements in the collection of data at the state level that enable us to provide new and
more in- depth information on some factors.
There remain some measures that are essential to a meaningful report, yet are beyond our
capacity. The most essential of these is persistence of students toward goals, which is a key
component of the Student Progress Monitoring System that is yet unfunded. Other outcomes
being developed are related to employer satisfaction with graduates and the success of the
Small Business Centers.
This report includes background information explaining why each measure was chosen, what
it is intended to show and the limitations of the data. The data and sources of the data, a brief
assessment of the implications of the data and recommendations for future changes in the
measures are given. Where appropriate, institutional data are presented on selected measures.
Recommendations for program changes indicated by the data are outside the scope of this
report.
The critical success factors were originally adopted by the State Board of Community
Colleges in July 1989 and amended in September 1990, September 1991, and in September
1992. North Carolina has adopted the matrix format of the National Alliance of Community
and Technical Colleges to graphically display the set of factors chosen. The matrix showing
the factors and measures is on page 4.
North Carolina Community College System
CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS AND MEASURES OF QUALITY, 1997- 98
FACTOR I
Student Success
A. Number of
students returning
from previous
quarters
B. Progress of
literacy students
C. Number of GED's
and AHSD's awarded
compared to the
number of dropouts
statewide
D. Performance of
transfers after two
semesters
E. Rate of success on
licensure exams
( where such are
required)
F. Program
completion rates
G. Passing rates for
remedial courses
H. Passing rates for
" General Education"
and " related"
courses
FACTOR II
Resources
A. Average salaries
as a percent of the
Southeastern
regional average
B. Student/ faculty
ratio
C. Participation in
staff development
programs: Tier A
D. Currentness of
equipment
E. Percent of
libraries meeting
ALA* standards
F. System
Funding/ FTE
FACTOR III
Access
A. Enrollment of
high school
dropouts;
handicapped;
disadvantaged;
single parents;
nontraditional high
school diploma
earners; inmates
B. Number served by
type through literacy
programs and
percent of target
population served
C. Number &
percent of dropouts
annually served by
literacy programs
D. Percent of
students receiving
financial aid and
amount of aid
compared with cost
of attendance
E. Percent of
population in service
area enrolled
FACTOR IV
Education
Continuum
A. Number &
percent of recent
high school
graduates enrolled in
community college
programs
B. Number of &
enrollment in
cooperative
agreements with high
school
C. Percent of Tech
Prep students
enrolling in a
community college
D. Number &
percent of students in
the UNC system who
attended a
community college
FACTOR V
Workforce
Development
A. Number of
employers and
trainees served by:
New & Expanding
Industry, FIT, Small
Business Centers,
Apprenticeship
programs
B. Number of
workplace literacy
sites and number of
students being
served
C. Employer
satisfaction with
graduates
D. Employment
status of graduates
FACTOR VI
Community
Services
A. Number of
courses offered &
students enrolled
through community
services
( avocational,
practical skills,
academic, and
recreational)
B. Enrollment of
senior citizens
C. Support of
community service
activities ( use of
facilities by outside
groups; support of
civic and cultural
activities)
FACTOR VII
Program
Management/
Accountability
A. Annual
educational program
audit summary--
number audited &
percent of system
instructional budget
cited for exceptions
B. Number and
percent of programs
reviewed
C. Number and
percent of eligible
programs accredited
or reaffirmed
* American Library Association
NOTE: Measures in italics are being developed for future reporting.
5
FUTURE PROSPECTS
The critical success factors aid the State Board of Community Colleges in setting strategic
goals for the System. By indicating how the System has performed and is performing
currently in key areas, the factors provide a foundation for adopting reasonable targets for
future efforts.
The critical success factors for the System provide a model for the individual institutions. The
National Alliance Model, which includes a process for developing, validating and revising the
chart, is recommended for developing critical success factors relevant to each college's goals
and mission.
Progress has been made in identifying measures that indicate educational outcomes for
students. The development of the Student Success Factor is a clear example of the emphasis
being put on the development of performance measures. As our experience with these
measures increases, additional performance measures will be developed and analyzed. The
focus will be on developing factors and measures that reflect the mission of the Community
College System in North Carolina.
It is to the interest of the System that the critical success factors provide useful and relevant
data to the public, the governing boards and the general assembly. They will reveal ways in
which the System can improve and progress, and provide a source for positive change by the
System's leadership.
7
CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTOR I: STUDENT SUCCESS
Increasingly, educational institutions are being called upon to support and document
educational accomplishments. This call for accountability is coming from the federal
government, state legislatures, and accrediting agencies. No longer can educational
institutions focus solely on the processes of education or on the number of students being
served. There is a public demand today for an accounting for public funds spent on education.
Put simply, the public, through government bodies and accreditation agencies, is demanding to
know what kind of return is being generated by the investment of public dollars in education.
Community colleges are operating under several new mandates relative to measuring student
success. The reauthorized Carl Perkins Act requires states to establish standards of
performance for students being served with Perkins funds. The federal Right- to- Know
legislation requires colleges and universities to inform prospective students of graduation rates
at the institution. The Southern Association of Colleges and Schools ( SACS), the accrediting
agency for colleges in the Southeast, has, for several years, required colleges to develop and
implement an institutional effectiveness process involving planning and the assessment of
expected educational results. The State Board of Community Colleges requires institutions to
submit annual institutional effectiveness plans to the North Carolina Community College
System Office that include the identification of expected educational outcomes. Beginning in
1994- 95, the State Board of Community Colleges requires institutions to review all
curriculum programs and services annually using a standard Annual Program Audit. Finally,
the State Board of Community Colleges adopted performance standards for colleges on those
critical success factors and measures that indicate colleges' performance in meeting System
goals. These standards became effective in 1995- 96.
The call for accountability renews the focus on students and student success. The
identification of the appropriate measures of student success for community college students
is not an easy task. Unlike traditional university students, the majority of whom are in pursuit
of a degree, community college students attend for a wide variety of reasons including pursuit
of a degree, transfer to a four- year institution, upgrading job skills, and attainment of basic
skills. Though progress has been made in the identification of some key student success
measures, continued efforts in this area need to be undertaken.
The measures for " Student Success" adopted by the State Board of Community Colleges are:
A. Number of Students Returning from Previous Quarters
B. Progress of Basic Skills Students
C. Number of GEDs and AHSDs Awarded Compared to the Number of Dropouts Statewide
D. Performance of Transfers After Two Semesters
E. Rate of Success on Licensure Exams ( where such are required)
F. Program Completion Rates
G. Passing Rates for Remedial Courses
H. Passing Rates for " General Education" and " related" courses
8
STUDENT SUCCESS MEASURE A: Number of Students Returning from
Previous Quarters
Background
Although there are many reasons why students cannot attend classes in any one quarter, or
why they drop out altogether, the quality of the program is one of those reasons. Students
who continue studies from quarter to quarter show commitment to a program and progress
toward completion. A report on retention in the Community College System was conducted
in 1987 ( Lincoln and Smith, 1987). That study is a more extensive discussion of retention
issues.
The definition of retention used in this report is based on the programs in which students
enrolled and calculates on the percentage of curriculum students who enroll in fall semester
and subsequently enroll in either the spring or the following fall semester. Specifically, for
students who enrolled in one- year programs ( certificate and/ or diploma programs), the
proportion of students who enrolled in fall semester, did not complete their program in fall
semester, and subsequently enrolled in spring of the same academic year was calculated. For
students who enrolled in two- year programs ( associate degree programs), the proportion of
students who enrolled in fall semester, did not complete their program within one year, and re-enrolled
in the following fall semester was calculated. The number of students who graduated
from a one- or two- year program within the report period was subtracted from the total
enrollment figures. Students in transitional programs were omitted from the analysis.
Beginning in 1991- 92 a new data field was added to the Curriculum Student Progress
Information System ( CSPIS) to capture student intent. Student intent was classified into six
codes to indicate why a student was enrolled at the institution. It was felt that, by knowing
student intent, a more accurate retention figure could be calculated. A separate analysis of
those students indicating degree, diploma, or certificate intent is provided.
Implications
The data indicate that 62.41 percent of fall curriculum students, enrolled in one- year
programs, reenrolled the following spring semester. Fall curriculum students enrolled in two-year
programs reenrolled the following fall at the rate of 52.40 percent. In both categories,
the percentages for degree seeking students is slightly higher, 65.36 and 54.10 respectively.
In reality, this measure examines student persistence rates.
9
Data
PROPORTION OF FALL CURRICULUM STUDENTS WHO
SUBSEQUENTLY ENROLL IN THE SPRING OR FALL SEMESTER
1- YEAR PROGRAMS
% RE- ENROLL
2- YEAR PROGRAMS
% RE- ENROLL
YEAR ALL
STUDENTS
DEGREE
SEEKING
ALL
STUDENTS
DEGREE
SEEKING
1997- 98 62.41 65.36 52.40 54.10
Source: Planning and Research, NC Community College System Office.
Recommendation
A more comprehensive examination of student enrollment data should be conducted as
resources permit. Factors that might affect retention should be examined. Information on
retention rates for other community college systems should be collected. In addition, a long-term
analysis of student enrollment patterns should be undertaken to determine more
effectively when students drop out rather than simply " stop out."
CURRICULUM STUDENTS WHO ENROLLED IN FALL 1997 AND REENROLLED
IN SPRING 1998 FOR 1- YEAR PROGRAMS AND FALL 1998 FOR 2- YEAR PROGRAMS
% of 1- Year Programs % of 2- Year Programs
INSTITUTION FTE All Degree Seeking All Degree Seeking
< 1,000
Pamlico CC 201 60.00 33.33 59.32 58.54
Montgomery CC 692 73.97 81.82 60.00 61.68
Bladen CC 779 56.54 55.33 52.91 52.20
Roanoke- Chowan CC 866 69.35 66.00 52.69 53.05
Mayland CC 879 59.86 61.76 58.29 62.15
Tri- County CC 893 48.04 50.60 46.71 48.51
Martin CC 919 72.58 75.51 61.64 62.50
Brunswick CC 971 67.91 70.54 55.73 55.79
1,000 - 1,999
James Sprunt CC 1,086 59.49 76.00 58.84 63.36
Anson CC 1,135 54.20 58.21 55.12 57.33
McDowell TCC 1,268 60.23 66.90 52.46 54.11
Sampson CC 1,352 52.13 60.32 56.31 54.88
Carteret CC 1,392 67.27 69.53 52.56 58.36
Piedmont CC 1,398 54.97 54.66 57.78 61.05
Isothermal CC 1,530 67.11 66.82 52.08 52.17
Mitchell CC 1,535 68.81 66.47 54.63 55.93
Halifax CC 1,548 54.55 52.83 58.67 61.40
Haywood CC 1,601 65.60 67.89 57.14 60.12
Blue Ridge CC 1,607 72.22 77.72 51.90 54.56
Beaufort County CC 1,638 60.15 63.56 57.37 60.60
Randolph CC 1,664 70.78 72.50 60.51 62.91
Richmond CC 1,664 77.63 80.00 57.19 62.10
Wilson TCC 1,667 68.58 68.85 55.56 55.50
Stanly CC 1,694 79.75 79.22 59.92 58.87
Rockingham CC 1,810 74.59 76.41 57.44 57.02
Nash CC 1,831 70.79 72.15 58.15 59.87
Edgecombe CC 1,848 53.75 56.16 50.78 51.41
Cleveland CC 1,852 60.57 63.23 53.34 54.16
Southwestern CC 1,894 52.10 55.14 53.15 53.70
College of the Albemarle 1,932 56.35 59.38 44.49 49.12
2,000 - 2,999
Southeastern CC 2,030 57.75 61.43 59.40 61.27
Craven CC 2,173 55.06 58.88 50.60 52.69
Robeson CC 2,213 44.11 46.31 57.12 57.89
Wilkes CC 2,270 64.67 70.14 59.96 62.41
Lenoir CC 2,274 75.48 76.67 62.78 63.18
Western Piedmont CC 2,290 62.50 67.35 61.98 62.96
Davidson County CC 2,444 63.08 63.19 58.89 58.66
Johnston CC 2,636 49.36 51.69 52.98 52.76
Alamance CC 2,690 55.92 55.83 54.26 54.13
Surry CC 2,694 62.53 65.69 56.07 57.78
Caldwell CC & TI 2,720 65.03 70.71 54.15 59.50
Sandhills CC 2,770 40.17 44.33 56.23 57.82
Vance- Granville CC 2,870 64.00 76.92 51.54 53.18
Wayne CC 2,938 64.57 68.13 54.59 56.33
3,000 - 4,999
Catawba Valley CC 3,115 65.77 68.91 57.58 59.65
Rowan Cabarrus CC 3,211 65.63 67.61 51.15 51.72
Gaston College 3,323 63.91 65.28 52.62 53.25
Durham TCC 3,439 70.82 69.47 54.23 54.16
Asheville- Buncombe TCC 3,669 65.67 66.15 49.14 49.29
Coastal Carolina CC 3,682 70.06 74.30 47.74 46.19
Central Carolina CC 3,803 56.72 67.67 57.58 61.11
Pitt CC 3,905 51.03 57.42 57.86 61.15
Cape Fear CC 3,914 61.42 61.65 53.90 54.71
Forsyth TCC 4,217 65.89 68.17 52.92 54.85
> 4,999
Guilford TCC 5,997 52.25 53.15 43.59 46.24
Wake TCC 6,848 67.13 67.52 50.44 51.09
Fayetteville TCC 8,314 71.55 71.91 44.12 47.00
Central Piedmont CC 9,743 54.84 57.33 46.27 48.89
System Total 143,338 62.41 65.36 52.40 54.10
10
11
STUDENT SUCCESS MEASURE B: Progress of Basic Skills Students
Background
In September 1994 the State Board of Community Colleges adopted four goals that set the
priorities of the System. Included in these goals were: upgrading, training and retraining (" a
world- class workforce"), and eliminating illiteracy. If North Carolina is to have a competitive
workforce, then individuals must be equipped, at the minimum, with basic skills. The efforts
undertaken by the Community College System in the area of basic skills are critical to the
future of the state.
In basic skills programs, as in all community college programs, the number of people who
complete a program is not a real indicator of the education being provided. Since it is not a
compulsory system, people are free to come and go as their life circumstances or interests
motivate them. However, they may benefit greatly from the classes they do attend and
complete. Many of the people who most need basic skills classes have not experienced
success in school and have fears to overcome before they are willing to attend regularly.
Moving from basic skills to a high school level education is a long and arduous process that
takes a great deal of commitment.
In basic skills programs, students are often pressured by lack of money, other demands on
their time, and by other barriers to continuing their educations. In spite of the barriers, many
adults do enroll for long enough periods of time to raise grade level abilities in reading, math,
and other skills, but still do not complete the entire program. With the testing programs put in
place in the last few years and with the student progress monitoring system; these gains will be
measurable and will indicate real impacts of the basic skills programs.
Two indicators of the progress of basic skills students were examined. First, data on the
progression of students through the basic skills programs were collected and analyzed. Using
the Literacy Education Information System ( LEIS), information was compiled on the
percentage of students who entered a level of basic skills and either exited the program during
the same year without completing the level entered; persisted in the level of basic skills
entered; completed the level of basic skills entered or completed a predetermined goal; or
completed the level entered and advanced to the next level of basic skills. In the case of AHS
( Adult High School) and GED ( General Educational Development), students who moved to a
higher level entered a curriculum or occupational extension program.
The indicator discussed above primarily measures the progress of basic skills students through
the basic skills program. Basic Skills, however, is really the beginning rather than the end of a
student's training for today's workplace. A second indicator of the progress of basic skills
students is an analysis of the number of students with an Adult High School Diploma ( AHSD)
or a GED who enter a curriculum or occupational extension program at the college. This
indicator is a measure of success for the student in gaining additional training and for the
System and colleges in providing a continuum of programs.
12
To determine the number of students with an AHSD or GED enrolled in the System, an
analysis of the annual curriculum registration and extension registration data tapes was
conducted. In previous years, these data files indicated that a student had a GED, but did not
distinguish between an AHSD and a regular high school diploma. In 1991- 92, however, a
separate code was given to students with an AHSD, thus allowing for this analysis.
Implications
In 1995- 96 the completion category of the following table was expanded to include students
who complete a predetermined goal. Previously, in the category of ‘ Exited Completers,’ only
students who completed a level and left the program were counted. Furthermore, in the new
category, if a student completes a level or goal this does not necessarily mean that the student
has exited the program; therefore, the category has been changed to ‘ Completed Level or
Goal.’ Data for Program Years 1993- 1995 have been deleted since these data no longer fit
the category as defined above.
The data on the number of students with an AHSD or a GED enrolled in a curriculum
program or an occupational extension program demonstrates the large number of non-traditional
students the colleges are serving. In 1997- 98 a total of 59,356 students with an
AHSD or a GED enrolled in a curriculum or occupational extension program.
Data
PERCENTAGE OF BASIC SKILLS STUDENTS WHO PROGRESS
TO ANOTHER LEVEL OF BASIC SKILLS
YEAR
EXIT, NON-COMPLETER
PROGRESSING
SAME LEVEL
* COMPLETED
LEVEL or GOAL
ADVANCED
NEXT LEVEL
1993- 94 25 56 ** 10
1994- 95 36 44 ** 11
1995- 96 22 31 35 12
1996- 97 22 34 32 12
1997- 98 24 30 35 11
* New Category
** No longer fits category definition.
Source: LEIS, Planning and Research, NC Community College System Office.
13
NUMBER OF STUDENTS WITH A GED OR AHSD ENROLLED IN A CURRICULUM
PROGRAM OR IN OCCUPATIONAL EXTENSION
YEAR CURRICULUM
OCCUPATIONAL
EXTENSION
GED AHSD GED AHSD
1993- 94 19,986 11,724 9,479 16,562
1994- 95 20,154 11,458 9,359 13,425
1995- 96 21,532 9,152 9,584 12,489
1996- 97 21,667 9,154 10,235 12,136
1997- 98 21,035 6,941 13,828 17,552
Source: Planning and Research, NC Community College System Office.
Recommendation
Refinements in the analysis of data provided by LEIS should continue. A system has been
developed to determine the level of basic skills achieved by completers who exited the
program as well as the personal goal accomplishment of students who exit without completing
the level of basic skills they entered. A long- term study should be designed to determine if
students who exit the basic skills program without completing their level of study re- enroll at
some future date.
Data on the enrollment of students with an AHSD or a GED should continue to be examined.
Colleges that have not incorporated the new coding scheme for AHSD should incorporate it
into the registration process. Efforts should be undertaken to match these data with the data
on students who earn an AHSD or a GED at each college in order to develop a measure of
the percentage of students who move from basic skills to some other college program.
PERCENTAGE OF BASIC SKILLS STUDENTS WHO PROGRESS TO ANOTHER LEVEL, 1997- 98
TOTAL SERVED COMPLETED PROGRESSING EXIT NON- MOVED TO A
INSTITUTION FTE IN LITERACY LEVEL/ GOAL SAME LEVEL COMPLETERS HIGHER LEVEL
< 1,000
Pamlico CC 201 217 53% 22% 19% 6%
Montgomery CC 692 528 9% 44% 38% 9%
Bladen CC 779 570 18% 46% 29% 7%
Roanoke- Chowan CC 866 761 11% 53% 26% 11%
Mayland CC 879 990 49% 10% 14% 26%
Tri- County CC 893 426 29% 46% 12% 14%
Martin CC 919 1,302 38% 34% 14% 14%
Brunswick CC 971 681 54% 21% 16% 9%
1,000- 1,999
James Sprunt CC 1,086 1,155 65% 10% 5% 20%
Anson CC 1,135 1,489 16% 37% 31% 16%
McDowell TCC 1,268 827 32% 39% 15% 14%
Sampson CC 1,352 1,325 25% 28% 32% 15%
Carteret CC 1,392 914 32% 40% 21% 6%
Piedmont CC 1,398 1,342 63% 14% 12% 11%
Isothermal CC 1,530 1,979 23% 49% 14% 13%
Mitchell CC 1,535 2,308 40% 26% 24% 10%
Halifax CC 1,548 1,617 41% 30% 18% 11%
Haywood CC 1,601 1,063 53% 6% 15% 27%
Blue Ridge CC 1,607 1,896 53% 14% 18% 16%
Beaufort County CC 1,638 1,225 38% 31% 22% 9%
Randolph CC 1,664 1,872 48% 24% 19% 9%
Richmond CC 1,664 3,229 21% 35% 24% 19%
Wilson TCC 1,667 1,767 7% 45% 36% 11%
Stanly CC 1,694 1,836 31% 32% 25% 11%
Rockingham CC 1,810 1,633 30% 32% 22% 16%
Nash CC 1,831 1,588 42% 33% 16% 9%
Edgecombe CC 1,848 2,264 13% 40% 37% 10%
Cleveland CC 1,852 1,393 31% 27% 29% 12%
Southwestern CC 1,894 1,424 18% 29% 37% 16%
College of the Albemarle 1,932 2,253 35% 35% 18% 13%
2,000- 2,999
Southeastern CC 2,030 1,616 32% 25% 26% 17%
Craven CC 2,173 1,476 49% 23% 21% 7%
Robeson CC 2,213 2,411 60% 13% 16% 10%
Wilkes CC 2,270 1,716 56% 25% 10% 9%
Lenoir CC 2,274 3,055 36% 26% 26% 13%
Western Piedmont CC 2,290 3,118 40% 28% 19% 14%
Davidson County CC 2,444 2,674 57% 15% 18% 10%
Johnston CC 2,636 1,983 36% 34% 26% 5%
Alamance CC 2,690 3,089 57% 25% 11% 7%
Surry CC 2,694 1,872 45% 23% 23% 9%
Caldwell CC & TI 2,720 2,478 55% 18% 9% 18%
Sandhills CC 2,770 2,164 20% 40% 32% 9%
Vance- Granville CC 2,870 2,894 30% 29% 24% 16%
Wayne CC 2,938 2,465 54% 17% 22% 8%
3,000- 4,999
Catawba Valley CC 3,115 3,230 83% 6% 1% 10%
Rowan Cabarrus CC 3,211 2,566 8% 40% 45% 7%
Gaston College 3,323 3,218 5% 40% 36% 19%
Durham TCC 3,439 3,194 15% 43% 33% 9%
Asheville- Buncombe TCC 3,669 3,219 23% 35% 28% 14%
Coastal Carolina CC 3,682 2,686 33% 25% 22% 21%
Central Carolina CC 3,803 4,231 23% 41% 29% 8%
Pitt CC 3,905 2,697 16% 43% 38% 3%
Cape Fear CC 3,914 2,041 24% 39% 28% 8%
Forsyth TCC 4,217 5,047 13% 40% 41% 7%
> 4,999
Guilford TCC 5,997 4,202 20% 28% 39% 14%
Wake TCC 6,848 7,555 17% 42% 31% 10%
Fayetteville TCC 8,314 5,348 33% 28% 25% 13%
Central Piedmont CC 9,743 8,309 67% 17% 12% 4%
System Totals 143,338 132,428 35% 30% 24% 11%
14
NUMBER OF STUDENTS WITH A GED OR AHSD ENROLLED
IN A CURRICULUM PROGRAM OR IN OCCUPATIONAL EXTENSION, 1997- 98
CURRICULUM OCCUPATIONAL EXT.
INSTITUTION FTE GED AHSD GED AHSD
< 1,000
Pamlico CC 201 42 11 69 35
Montgomery CC 692 138 23 78 71
Bladen CC 779 141 40 86 65
Roanoke- Chowan CC 866 228 9 2 124
Mayland CC 879 234 9 41 129
Tri- County CC 893 212 22 154 120
Martin CC 919 115 15 153 92
Brunswick CC 971 126 56 161 74
1,000 - 1,999
James Sprunt CC 1,086 170 28 112 64
Anson CC 1,135 441 42 154 192
McDowell TCC 1,268 274 20 28 158
Sampson CC 1,352 188 44 303 69
Carteret CC 1,392 266 66 193 341
Piedmont CC 1,398 284 45 101 72
Isothermal CC 1,530 211 131 12 135
Mitchell CC 1,535 318 54 412 306
Halifax CC 1,548 347 11 310 3
Haywood CC 1,601 176 13 127 145
Blue Ridge CC 1,607 355 34 292 227
Beaufort County CC 1,638 162 13 236 191
Randolph CC 1,664 244 45 77 643
Richmond CC 1,664 174 117 49 14
Wilson TCC 1,667 240 94 125 472
Stanly CC 1,694 320 117 282 454
Rockingham CC 1,810 206 63 87 225
Nash CC 1,831 282 57 331 121
Edgecombe CC 1,848 364 50 114 123
Cleveland CC 1,852 260 100 140 253
Southwestern CC 1,894 384 205 298 363
College of the Albemarle 1,932 56 293 64
2,000 - 2,999
Southeastern CC 2,030 272 84 249 143
Craven CC 2,173 441 45 323 222
Robeson CC 2,213 78 75 144 1,587
Wilkes CC 2,270 206 96 276 168
Lenoir CC 2,274 443 119 163 287
Western Piedmont CC 2,290 490 98 100 232
Davidson County CC 2,444 76 61 573 266
Johnston CC 2,636 460 118 3 430
Alamance CC 2,690 515 68 229 202
Surry CC 2,694 364 52 345 123
Caldwell CC & TI 2,720 497 196 436 163
Sandhills CC 2,770 396 43 197 175
Vance- Granville CC 2,870 666 47 653 442
Wayne CC 2,938 233 148 370 418
3,000 - 4,999
Catawba Valley CC 3,115 525 9 410 611
Rowan Cabarrus CC 3,211 376 337 11 725
Gaston College 3,323 711 214 470 414
Durham TCC 3,439 212 502 172 732
Asheville- Buncombe TCC 3,669 712 105 518 248
Coastal Carolina CC 3,682 514 74 53 442
Central Carolina CC 3,803 566 202 344 720
Pitt CC 3,905 621 104 3 272
Cape Fear CC 3,914 552 129 535 291
Forsyth TCC 4,217 475 561 25 1,045
> 4,999
Guilford TCC 5,997 811 676 973
Wake TCC 6,848 830 279 893 291
Fayetteville TCC 8,314 891 417 1,059 415
Central Piedmont CC 9,743 1,200 492 454 170
System Total 143,338 21,035 6,941 13,828 17,552
15
16
STUDENT SUCCESS MEASURE C: Number of GEDs and AHSDs Awarded
Compared to the Number of Dropouts
Statewide
Background
The great majority of people in North Carolina's workforce are people who are well past high
school age. Reducing the numbers of dropouts will result in raising the educational levels of
the workforce, but only gradually. If the educational levels of the workforce are to be
significantly affected in the short run, more mature people will also have to be attracted back
into educational programs.
This measure reflects the net impact of GED/ AHSD programs on the percentage of the
population without high school credentials. It does not show how many of last year's ( or any
year's) dropouts came back to get a diploma in a community college. ( That is the intent of
Access Measure C.) This measure shows how many people of whatever ages come back to
get their diplomas compared to the number of dropouts in any given year. The number of
adults without these credentials is reduced only in two other ways: by their dying or moving
out of North Carolina.
Ideally, the numbers of dropouts will continue to go down at the same time that the numbers
of GEDs and AHSDs are raised. That would be attacking the problem at both ends!
Implications
The dropout data for 1997- 98 will not be released by the Department of Public Instruction
until after its May 1999 State Board Meeting. Therefore, we are unable to show the affect of
basic skills training on the dropout pool at this time. However, the increased number of
GED/ AHS diplomas awarded demonstrates the critical role that community colleges play in
providing basic skills education to students who were not successful in the public schools.
Over the past five years, the number of GEDs and AHSDs awarded has increased steadily.
Except for 1993- 94, the number of individuals who do not complete public schools and need
basic skills training has increased. The 1996- 97 data showed the first decrease in the dropout
pool since 1993- 94.
17
Data
NUMBER OF GEDs AND AHSDs AWARDED COMPARED TO THE
NUMBER OF DROPOUTS STATEWIDE
YEAR
NEW DROPOUTS ADDED
TO DROPOUT POOL
GED/ AHS DIPLOMAS
AWARDED
INCREASE IN
DROPOUT POOL
1993- 94 17,371 16,528 843
1994- 95 17,844 16,797 1,047
1995- 96 18,203 16,913 1,290
1996- 97 18,235 17,144 1,091
1997- 98 Data unavailable. 17,758
Source: GED/ AHS Files, NC Community College System Office.
Dropout Records, NC Department of Public Instruction.
NUMBER OF GEDs/ AHSDs AWARDED, 1997- 98
INSTITUTION FTE AHS GED
< 1,000
Pamlico CC 201 * 50
Montgomery CC 692 * 52
Bladen CC 779 2 75
Roanoke- Chowan CC 866 * 120
Mayland CC 879 2 223
Tri- County CC 893 * 108
Martin CC 919 33 78
Brunswick CC 971 * 107
1,000 - 1,999
James Sprunt CC 1,086 9 87
Anson CC 1,135 48 176
McDowell TCC 1,268 * 104
Sampson CC 1,352 * 261
Carteret CC 1,392 73 193
Piedmont CC 1,398 * 210
Isothermal CC 1,530 77 157
Mitchell CC 1,535 * 316
Halifax CC 1,548 * 113
Haywood CC 1,601 * 133
Blue Ridge CC 1,607 17 373
Beaufort County CC 1,638 * 110
Randolph CC 1,664 85 257
Richmond CC 1,664 27 486
Wilson TCC 1,667 64 119
Stanly CC 1,694 95 132
Rockingham CC 1,810 * 118
Nash CC 1,831 38 158
Edgecombe CC 1,848 40 199
Cleveland CC 1,852 99 175
Southwestern CC 1,894 20 450
College of the Albemarle 1,932 47 340
2,000 - 2,999
Southeastern CC 2,030 35 210
Craven CC 2,173 35 126
Robeson CC 2,213 169 82
Wilkes CC 2,270 72 121
Lenoir CC 2,274 70 175
Western Piedmont CC 2,290 48 582
Davidson County CC 2,444 101 169
Johnston CC 2,636 134 65
Alamance CC 2,690 31 373
Surry CC 2,694 * 209
Caldwell CC & TI 2,720 31 505
Sandhills CC 2,770 1 350
Vance- Granville CC 2,870 51 383
Wayne CC 2,938 46 315
3,000 - 4,999
Catawba Valley CC 3,115 * 296
Rowan Cabarrus CC 3,211 52 314
Gaston College 3,323 110 577
Durham TCC 3,439 99 115
Asheville- Buncombe TCC 3,669 2 501
Coastal Carolina CC 3,682 40 338
Central Carolina CC 3,803 163 381
Pitt CC 3,905 31 259
Cape Fear CC 3,914 73 234
Forsyth TCC 4,217 98 470
> 4,999
Guilford TCC 5,997 201 492
Wake TCC 6,848 51 646
Fayetteville TCC 8,314 106 326
Central Piedmont CC 9,743 243 523
Anson- Stanly CC ** 148
St. Andrews College 7
State Office 117
System Total 143,338 2,869 14,889
18
19
STUDENT SUCCESS MEASURE D: Performance of Transfers After Two
Semesters
Background
The primary aim of community college transfer programs is to provide educational
experiences that will enable transfer students to make the transition to a baccalaureate
program and perform as well as the students who start out at the receiving institution.
Technical and vocational programs are not designed to qualify students for transfer.
However, programs such as Associate Degree Nursing and Engineering Technology allow
students to concentrate on practical courses in the first two years and to complete the
complementary portion of their programs later. Often, this enables the student to work in the
field while getting his or her baccalaureate. It also may accommodate students who do not
think they want to get a baccalaureate until after they have had some success in the early
portion of the program. This type of program is likely to become more popular, especially as
more working adults decide they want a baccalaureate.
All colleges now offer college transfer programs. Some colleges may also be involved in a
contractual program in which a senior college provides general education programs to the
community college students.
Performance data on students who transfer to a four- year institution are provided by the
University of North Carolina B General Administration and include only those students who
transferred to one of the 16 constituent institutions of the UNC System. No data are available
from the private colleges and universities in North Carolina. In addition, the data traditionally
reported are for any student who transferred to a UNC institution, regardless of the program
from which the student transferred or the number of hours taken at the community college.
Implications
The 1996- 97 data, unavailable when the 1998 CSF report was printed, is provided. However,
the 1997- 98 data from UNC- General Administration will be delayed and will be provided at a
later date.
Before 1996- 97, all 58 community colleges transferred students to UNC institutions; however,
data were provided in two categories - colleges offering and colleges not offering pre-baccalaureate
degree programs. Beginning in 1996- 97, all colleges were approved to offer
pre- baccalaureate degree programs. The data show virtually no change in the number of
transfers. The percentage of students in good standing has declined; however, the GPAs
show no large fluctuations.
20
Data
ACADEMIC STANDING OF TRANSFER STUDENTS FROM COMMUNITY COLLEGES
OFFERING
PRE- BACCALAUREATE PROGRAMS, AFTER TWO SEMESTERS,
END OF YEAR MEASURES
PERCENT OF STUDENTS* WHOSE STANDING IS:
YEAR NUMBER GOOD PROBATION SUSPEND. WITHDREW GRAD.
1992- 93 3,647 76.0 9.9 5.6 7.9 0.6
1993- 94 3,928 75.7 8.2 7.2 8.4 0.5
1994- 95 4,065 75.5 8.7 6.7 8.5 0.6
1995- 96 3,904 77.0 7.6 5.6 9.5 0.3
ACADEMIC STANDING OF TRANSFER STUDENTS FROM COMMUNITY COLLEGES
NOT OFFERING
PRE- BACCALAUREATE PROGRAMS, AFTER TWO SEMESTERS,
END OF YEAR MEASURES
PERCENT OF STUDENTS* WHOSE STANDING IS:
YEAR NUMBER GOOD PROBATION SUSPEND. WITHDREW GRAD.
1992- 93 375 80.0 6.1 4.5 8.8 0.5
1993- 94 336 77.4 3.0 6.8 11.9 0.9
1994- 95 170 75.3 7.1 7.6 8.8 1.2
1995- 96 145 80.7 3.5 9.0 6.2 0.7
ACADEMIC STANDING OF TRANSFER STUDENTS FROM COMMUNITY COLLEGES
OFFERING
PRE- BACCALAUREATE PROGRAMS, AFTER TWO SEMESTERS,
END OF YEAR MEASURES
PERCENT OF STUDENTS* WHOSE STANDING IS:
YEAR NUMBER GOOD PROBATION SUSPEND. WITHDREW GRAD.
1996- 97 4,050 65.0 ** ** ** **
* Numbers may not add to 100 percent due to rounding.
** Data not available.
21
TRANSFERS' FALL AND END OF YEAR GPA, COMMUNITY COLLEGES
OFFERING
PRE- BACCALAUREATE DEGREE PROGRAMS
YEAR NUMBER FALL GPA END OF YEAR GPA
1992- 93 3,647 2.61 2.61
1993- 94 3,928 2.60 2.59
1994- 95 4,065 2.61 2.62
1995- 96 3,904 2.66 2.66
TRANSFERS' FALL AND END OF YEAR GPA, COMMUNITY COLLEGES
NOT OFFERING
PRE- BACCALAUREATE DEGREE PROGRAMS
YEAR NUMBER FALL GPA END OF YEAR GPA
1992- 93 375 2.56 2.67
1993- 94 336 2.62 2.64
1994- 95 170 2.44 2.52
1995- 96 145 2.74 2.65
TRANSFERS' FALL AND END OF YEAR GPA, COMMUNITY COLLEGES
OFFERING
PRE- BACCALAUREATE DEGREE PROGRAMS
YEAR NUMBER FALL GPA END OF YEAR GPA
1996- 97 4,050 2.52 2.59
Source: Transfers' Performance Report, UNC General Administration.
TRANSFERS' FALL AND END OF YEAR GPA AND PERCENT OF GOOD ACADEMIC STANDING, 1996- 97
INSTITUTION NUMBER FALL GPA END OF YEAR GPA % GOOD
< 1,000
Pamlico CC 6 2.39 2.46 66.70
Montgomery CC 2 N/ A N/ A N/ A
Tri- County CC 18 2.43 2.72 66.70
Bladen CC 28 1.96 2.05 32.10
Roanoke- Chowan CC 24 2.70 2.71 66.70
Mayland CC 14 2.76 2.68 71.40
Martin CC 21 2.34 2.52 66.70
Brunswick CC 27 2.36 2.23 51.90
James Sprunt CC 31 2.36 2.41 58.10
1,000 - 1,999
McDowell TCC 17 2.34 2.63 76.50
Piedmont CC 24 2.72 2.78 70.80
Anson CC 3 3.15 3.05 100.00
Carteret CC 35 2.63 2.75 60.00
Sampson CC 30 2.38 2.47 66.70
Haywood CC 42 2.25 2.37 61.90
Beaufort County CC 40 2.69 2.74 75.00
Mitchell CC 49 2.39 2.43 55.10
Isothermal CC 50 2.43 2.58 72.00
Halifax CC 27 1.85 1.90 48.10
Blue Ridge CC 40 2.55 2.57 65.00
Stanly CC 24 2.39 2.60 66.70
Nash CC 32 2.55 2.58 59.40
Richmond CC 35 2.58 2.60 57.10
Wilson TCC 14 1.92 2.20 42.90
Randolph CC 32 2.82 2.67 62.50
Rockingham CC 64 2.79 2.70 70.30
Southwestern CC 68 2.30 2.56 72.10
Cleveland CC 26 2.02 2.18 46.20
College of the Albemarle 64 2.70 2.72 65.60
Southeastern CC 37 2.35 2.46 64.90
Edgecombe CC 17 2.51 2.48 76.50
Craven CC 74 2.64 2.75 67.60
2,000 - 2,999
Wilkes CC 63 2.53 2.63 66.70
Robeson CC 49 2.34 2.43 61.20
Lenoir CC 80 2.43 2.60 68.80
Western Piedmont CC 60 2.60 2.66 66.70
Davidson County CC 65 2.62 2.77 75.40
Surry CC 110 2.48 2.57 69.10
Caldwell CC & TI 47 2.62 2.72 78.70
Alamance CC 64 2.79 2.72 65.60
Wayne CC 84 2.36 2.38 54.80
Sandhills CC 149 2.42 2.48 61.70
Johnston CC 47 2.25 2.53 51.10
Catawba Valley CC 69 2.59 2.64 72.50
Vance- Granville CC 53 2.53 2.58 58.50
Rowan Cabarrus CC 53 2.36 2.37 56.60
Durham TCC 175 2.74 2.76 72.00
3,000 - 4,999
Cape Fear CC 208 2.44 2.54 61.50
Gaston College 138 2.28 2.38 58.70
Central Carolina CC 52 2.37 2.51 63.50
Pitt CC 142 2.49 2.56 71.10
Coastal Carolina CC 129 2.96 2.90 77.50
Asheville- Buncombe TCC 115 2.59 2.67 73.90
Forsyth TCC 135 2.32 2.48 53.30
> 4,999
Guilford TCC 183 2.58 2.56 60.70
Wake TCC 198 2.70 2.69 72.70
Fayetteville TCC 185 2.71 2.72 63.20
Central Piedmont CC 382 2.52 2.55 63.40
System Total 4,050 2.52 2.59 65.00
22
23
STUDENT SUCCESS MEASURE E: Rate of Success on Licensure Exams
Background
There are 27 technical/ vocational curriculums that prepare students for licensing and/ or
certification exams. A licensure requirement for an occupation is one that is required by state
statute for an individual to work in that occupation. Certification is generally voluntary but
may be required by employers or an outside accrediting agency.
Not all licensing boards have cooperated with the Community College System Office by
providing data on student success. This year, data from 14 of the licensing and certification
boards were obtained on 32 different licensure or certification examinations. The data that
were obtained are for first- time test takers who took the exam between July 1, 1997 and June
30, 1998. Exceptions to this are the emergency medical technician, insurance and nursing
examinations results that were for January 1, 1998 B December 31, 1998.
Passing rates indicate how successful the program has been. However, passing rates can be
affected by the native ability of the students or their preparation before entering the
curriculum. In addition, many students take coursework to learn a skill and do not necessarily
intend to become licensed. Since these students do not take the licensure test, the success of
programs in their preparation cannot be determined using passing rates on exams. Finally,
without established baselines on examination passing rates, it is difficult to make judgments
about what constitutes a " good" or " bad" passing rate.
Implications
In the case of nursing, graduates of associate degree and baccalaureate degree programs take
the same examination to become licensed as a registered nurse. In 1998 community college
associate degree graduates dropped one percentage point below the passing rate for
baccalaureate nursing program graduates.
Eight of the licensure/ certification exams had a passing rate for first- time test takers of less
than 70 percent. This is two more than last year. At this point it is not known why these rates
were as low as they were nor how these rates compare with the passing rates of other schools.
It is also not known what percentage of those who fail the exam the first time, retake the
exam and are successful. In the case of real estate, emergency medical technician and
insurance, it should be pointed out that students do not have to complete the program to be
eligible for the exam. It is likely that a large number of students taking the exam, especially
those taking the exam for the first time ( which are reported here), have only completed the
minimum required courses for the exam, not the entire program. In addition, many of the
colleges offering emergency medical technician, real estate, and insurance courses do so
through continuing education. At this point it is not possible to determine the passing rate for
curriculum students in those programs versus the passing rate for continuing education.
24
Data
PERCENTAGE OF NCCCS GRADUATES PASSING THE NATIONAL COUNCIL
LICENSURE EXAM FOR NURSES ( RN)
YEAR
# OF CC GRAD.
TAKING EXAM
CC GRADUATES
AS % OF TOTAL
TAKING EXAM
% OF GRAD.
PASSING EXAMS
% NON- CC TAKERS
PASSING EXAM
HOSPITAL
DIPLOMA
UNIVERSITY
1993- 94 1,963 56 95 97 90
1994- 95 1,798 56 94 94 91
1995* 1,810 62 93 95 94
1996 1,684 59 91 94 89
1997 1,695 59 92 94 89
1998 1,624 58 87 92 88
* The NC Board of Nursing started to report the results by calendar year.
Source: NC Board of Nursing.
25
PERCENTAGE OF COMMUNITY COLLEGE STUDENTS PASSING
LICENSING AND CERTIFICATION EXAMINATIONS
( FIRST- TIME TEST TAKERS ONLY)
FIELD
NUMBER OF STUDENTS
TAKING EXAM % PASSING EXAM
Aviation Maintenance
General 5 100
Airframe 1 19 89
Power Plant 3 100
Basic Law Enforcement Trng. 1,546 95
Cosmetic Arts
Apprentice 348 86
Cosmetology 644 75
Cosmetology Teacher 9 67
Manicurist 391 88
Dental Assisting 77 97
Dental Hygiene 118 95
Emergency Medical Technician ( EMT)
EMT 2,834 62
EMT- D 1,240 83
EMT- I 548 77
EMT- P 457 90
EMD 39 95
Insurance
Life and Health 362 71
Property and Liability 286 58
Medicaid/ Medicare Supp. 122 74
Medical Sonography
Physics 13 62
Abdomen 9 78
OB- GYN 10 60
Nursing
RN 1,624 87
PN 788 93
Opticianry 12 58
Physical Therapist Assistant 142 71
Radiologic Technology
Nuclear Medicine Technology 12 100
Radiation Therapy Technology 10 90
Radiography 191 92
Real Estate
Broker 303 67
Sales 1,422 62
Veterinary Medical Technology 47 96
Source: Planning and Research, NC Community College System Office.
26
Recommendation
These data are especially valuable. They have a direct and unambiguous relationship to the
quality of the program and should be carefully monitored over time. A standing
Accountability Committee has been formed at the System Office to review data and
performance standards reported in the Critical Success Factors Report. The committee, in
cooperation with colleges, is working toward improving performance especially where passing
rates are less than 70 percent.
The remaining licensing boards must begin to supply the data on community college
graduates. Difficulties identifying these graduates can and should be overcome. Comparative
data on passing rates for each licensure exam should be identified and collected.
PASSING RATES ON LICENSING AND CERTIFICATION EXAMINATIONS, 1997- 98
-- AVIATION--
FIRST- TIME TEST TAKERS
GENERAL AIRFRAME POWER PLANT
INSTITUTION FTE # TESTED % PASSED # TESTED % PASSED # TESTED % PASSED
< 1,000
Pamlico CC 201
Montgomery CC 692
Bladen CC 779
Roanoke- Chowan CC 866
Mayland CC 879
Tri- County CC 893
Martin CC 919
Brunswick CC 971
1,000 - 1,999
James Sprunt CC 1,086
Anson CC 1,135
McDowell TCC 1,268
Sampson CC 1,352
Carteret CC 1,392
Piedmont CC 1,398
Isothermal CC 1,530
Mitchell CC 1,535
Halifax CC 1,548
Haywood CC 1,601
Blue Ridge CC 1,607
Beaufort County CC 1,638
Randolph CC 1,664
Richmond CC 1,664
Wilson TCC 1,667
Stanly CC 1,694
Rockingham CC 1,810
Nash CC 1,831
Edgecombe CC 1,848
Cleveland CC 1,852
Southwestern CC 1,894
College of the Albemarle 1,932
2,000 - 2,999
Southeastern CC 2,030
Craven CC 2,173
Robeson CC 2,213
Wilkes CC 2,270
Lenoir CC 2,274
Western Piedmont CC 2,290
Davidson County CC 2,444
Johnston CC 2,636
Alamance CC 2,690
Surry CC 2,694
Caldwell CC & TI 2,720
Sandhills CC 2,770
Vance- Granville CC 2,870
Wayne CC 2,938 5 100 5 100 * 100
3,000 - 4,999
Catawba Valley CC 3,115
Rowan Cabarrus CC 3,211
Gaston College 3,323
Durham TCC 3,439
Asheville- Buncombe TCC 3,669
Coastal Carolina CC 3,682
Central Carolina CC 3,803
Pitt CC 3,905
Cape Fear CC 3,914
Forsyth TCC 4,217
> 4,999
Guilford TCC 5,997 14 86 * 100
Wake TCC 6,848
Fayetteville TCC 8,314
Central Piedmont CC 9,743
System Total 143,338 5 100 19 89 3 100
* Number of test takers too small to report without violating students' privacy. 27
PASSING RATES ON LICENSING AND CERTIFICATION EXAMINATIONS, 1997- 98
-- BASIC LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING--
FIRST- TIME TEST TAKERS
BLET
INSTITUTION FTE # TESTED % PASSED
< 1,000
Pamlico CC 201
Montgomery CC 692 10 90
Bladen CC 779 12 92
Roanoke- Chowan CC 866
Mayland CC 879 13 85
Tri- County CC 893
Martin CC 919 8 100
Brunswick CC 971 9 89
1,000 - 1,999
James Sprunt CC 1,086 9 89
Anson CC 1,135
McDowell TCC 1,268 18 89
Sampson CC 1,352 16 100
Carteret CC 1,392 34 100
Piedmont CC 1,398
Isothermal CC 1,530 7 86
Mitchell CC 1,535 38 97
Halifax CC 1,548 28 82
Haywood CC 1,601
Blue Ridge CC 1,607
Beaufort County CC 1,638 36 89
Randolph CC 1,664 23 96
Richmond CC 1,664
Wilson TCC 1,667 35 100
Stanly CC 1,694 44 91
Rockingham CC 1,810 39 95
Nash CC 1,831
Edgecombe CC 1,848
Cleveland CC 1,852 22 100
Southwestern CC 1,894 46 89
College of the Albemarle 1,932 20 100
2,000 - 2,999
Southeastern CC 2,030 21 95
Craven CC 2,173 34 94
Robeson CC 2,213 49 94
Wilkes CC 2,270 12 100
Lenoir CC 2,274 29 100
Western Piedmont CC 2,290 14 100
Davidson County CC 2,444 37 100
Johnston CC 2,636 25 92
Alamance CC 2,690
Surry CC 2,694 39 97
Caldwell CC & TI 2,720 33 97
Sandhills CC 2,770 29 97
Vance- Granville CC 2,870 35 97
Wayne CC 2,938 26 92
3,000 - 4,999
Catawba Valley CC 3,115 30 93
Rowan Cabarrus CC 3,211 47 94
Gaston College 3,323 71 90
Durham TCC 3,439
Asheville- Buncombe TCC 3,669 71 100
Coastal Carolina CC 3,682 46 100
Central Carolina CC 3,803 46 98
Pitt CC 3,905 72 97
Cape Fear CC 3,914 89 97
Forsyth TCC 4,217 21 100
> 4,999
Guilford TCC 5,997 30 100
Wake TCC 6,848 54 94
Fayetteville TCC 8,314 85 92
Central Piedmont CC 9,743 34 91
System Total 143,338 1,546 95
28
PASSING RATES ON LICENSING AND CERTIFICATION EXAMINATIONS, 1997- 98
-- COSMETIC ARTS--
FIRST- TIME TEST TAKERS
APPRENTICE COSMETOLOGY COS. TEACHER MANICURIST
INSTITUTION FTE # TESTED % PASSED # TESTED % PASSED # TESTED % PASSED # TESTED % PASSED
< 1,000
Pamlico CC 201
Montgomery CC 692
Bladen CC 779 * 100 * 100 * 100
Roanoke- Chowan CC 866 8 63
Mayland CC 879 9 89 6 50 5 80
Tri- County CC 893 * 100 12 92 * 75
Martin CC 919 5 100 13 69
Brunswick CC 971 15 93 14 71 18 89
1,000 - 1,999
James Sprunt CC 1,086 16 94 14 79 * 100 21 81
Anson CC 1,135 5 100
McDowell TCC 1,268 11 100 11 91 * 0 8 88
Sampson CC 1,352 * 100 13 92 5 100
Carteret CC 1,392 5 80 12 100
Piedmont CC 1,398 5 100 6 83
Isothermal CC 1,530 16 88 12 50 16 75
Mitchell CC 1,535 7 71
Halifax CC 1,548
Haywood CC 1,601 17 76 * 100 15 100
Blue Ridge CC 1,607 * 75 10 90 13 77
Beaufort County CC 1,638 * 100 13 85 * 100
Randolph CC 1,664
Richmond CC 1,664
Wilson TCC 1,667
Stanly CC 1,694 * 100 6 100 * 100 13 92
Rockingham CC 1,810 23 91 * 0
Nash CC 1,831 * 50 7 71 17 76
Edgecombe CC 1,848 24 71 12 67 * 25
Cleveland CC 1,852
Southwestern CC 1,894 * 100 14 93 * 0 * 100
College of the Albemarle 1,932 15 100 * 100 18 83
2,000 - 2,999
Southeastern CC 2,030 8 50 15 67 8 100
Craven CC 2,173 * 75 37 87 31 97
Robeson CC 2,213 6 100 49 59 18 72
Wilkes CC 2,270
Lenoir CC 2,274 16 62 22 45 25 100
Western Piedmont CC 2,290
Davidson County CC 2,444 10 100 42 83 * 100
Johnston CC 2,636 36 92 * 50 20 95
Alamance CC 2,690 15 87 12 50
Surry CC 2,694 20 95 8 88
Caldwell CC & TI 2,720 12 92 16 69 30 90
Sandhills CC 2,770 7 86 29 79 * 100
Vance- Granville CC 2,870 32 69 57 51 18 67
Wayne CC 2,938 32 75
3,000 - 4,999
Catawba Valley CC 3,115
Rowan Cabarrus CC 3,211 10 90 18 78 6 100
Gaston College 3,323
Durham TCC 3,439
Asheville- Buncombe TCC 3,669
Coastal Carolina CC 3,682 28 89
Central Carolina CC 3,803 20 85 38 82 * 100 32 91
Pitt CC 3,905
Cape Fear CC 3,914
Forsyth TCC 4,217
> 4,999
Guilford TCC 5,997 15 87 18 94 11 91
Wake TCC 6,848
Fayetteville TCC 8,314
Central Piedmont CC 9,743
System Total 143,338 348 86 644 75 9 67 391 88
* Number of test takers too small to report without violating students' privacy. 29
PASSING RATES ON LICENSING AND CERTIFICATION EXAMINATIONS, 1997- 98
DENTAL ASSISTING-- DENTAL HYGIENE-- PHYSICAL THERAPIST ASSISTANT
FIRST- TIME TEST TAKERS
DENTAL ASSISTING DENTAL HYGIENE PHY. THERAPIST ASST.
INSTITUTION FTE # TESTED % PASSED # TESTED % PASSED # TESTED % PASSED
< 1,000
Pamlico CC 201
Montgomery CC 692
Bladen CC 779
Roanoke- Chowan CC 866
Mayland CC 879
Tri- County CC 893
Martin CC 919 32 72
Brunswick CC 971
1,000 - 1,999
James Sprunt CC 1,086
Anson CC 1,135
McDowell TCC 1,268
Sampson CC 1,352
Carteret CC 1,392
Piedmont CC 1,398
Isothermal CC 1,530
Mitchell CC 1,535
Halifax CC 1,548
Haywood CC 1,601
Blue Ridge CC 1,607
Beaufort County CC 1,638
Randolph CC 1,664
Richmond CC 1,664
Wilson TCC 1,667
Stanly CC 1,694 16 75
Rockingham CC 1,810
Nash CC 1,831 14 36
Edgecombe CC 1,848
Cleveland CC 1,852
Southwestern CC 1,894 15 93
College of the Albemarle 1,932
2,000 - 2,999
Southeastern CC 2,030
Craven CC 2,173
Robeson CC 2,213
Wilkes CC 2,270 12 100
Lenoir CC 2,274
Western Piedmont CC 2,290
Davidson County CC 2,444
Johnston CC 2,636
Alamance CC 2,690
Surry CC 2,694
Caldwell CC & TI 2,720 23 65
Sandhills CC 2,770
Vance- Granville CC 2,870
Wayne CC 2,938 13 85 21 95
3,000 - 4,999
Catawba Valley CC 3,115
Rowan Cabarrus CC 3,211 14 100
Gaston College 3,323
Durham TCC 3,439
Asheville- Buncombe TCC 3,669 * 100 16 100
Coastal Carolina CC 3,682 20 100 20 100
Central Carolina CC 3,803
Pitt CC 3,905
Cape Fear CC 3,914 5 100
Forsyth TCC 4,217
> 4,999
Guilford TCC 5,997 * 100 25 100
Wake TCC 6,848 * 100
Fayetteville TCC 8,314 7 100 20 85 16 81
Central Piedmont CC 9,743 16 88 26 73
System Total 143,338 77 97 118 95 142 71
* Number of test takers too small to report without violating students' privacy. 30
PASSING RATES ON LICENSING AND CERTIFICATION EXAMINATIONS, 1998
-- EMERGENCY MEDICAL TECHNICIAN ( EMT)--
FIRST- TIME TEST TAKERS
EMT EMT- D EMT- I EMT- P EMD
INSTITUTION FTE # TESTED % PASSED # TESTED % PASSED # TESTED % PASSED # TESTED % PASSED # TESTED % PASSED
< 1,000
Pamlico CC 201 * 100
Montgomery CC 692 9 78 5 60 7 86
Bladen CC 779 25 32 5 80
Roanoke- Chowan CC 866 7 43 * 100
Mayland CC 879 10 70 * 0 13 92
Tri- County CC 893 67 57 14 64 26 81 13 92
Martin CC 919 31 52 17 88 22 59
Brunswick CC 971 51 37 24 79 * 50
1,000 - 1,999
James Sprunt CC 1,086 26 54 18 61
Anson CC 1,135 12 58 5 100
McDowell TCC 1,268 19 63 6 100
Sampson CC 1,352 20 65 18 89
Carteret CC 1,392 51 73 6 67 10 70
Piedmont CC 1,398 19 37
Isothermal CC 1,530 49 63 21 62 8 50 8 100
Mitchell CC 1,535 34 56 14 79 7 43
Halifax CC 1,548 19 37 15 53 7 71
Haywood CC 1,601 35 69 8 88 23 78 15 100
Blue Ridge CC 1,607 37 65 9 89 * 100 19 100
Beaufort County CC 1,638 73 45 21 48 12 83
Randolph CC 1,664 62 48 15 67 16 88 15 67
Richmond CC 1,664 30 30 7 71 12 67
Wilson TCC 1,667 38 60 8 75 * 100
Stanly CC 1,694 30 73 14 71 13 69
Rockingham CC 1,810 21 43 38 50 7 71 19 84
Nash CC 1,831 22 55 25 84 22 77 5 100
Edgecombe CC 1,848 8 38 5 100
Cleveland CC 1,852 27 44 13 8
Southwestern CC 1,894 22 73 * 33
College of the Albemarle 1,932 58 47 12 92
2,000 - 2,999
Southeastern CC 2,030 21 38 17 77 18 83
Craven CC 2,173 43 54 12 83 18 83 20 100
Robeson CC 2,213 47 87 39 87 11 91 19 100
Wilkes CC 2,270 18 67 9 89 * 50 23 78
Lenoir CC 2,274 61 56 11 91 22 64 16 100
Western Piedmont CC 2,290 28 21 27 93
Davidson County CC 2,444 33 82 * 100 37 87
Johnston CC 2,636 53 47 30 77 * 0
Alamance CC 2,690 30 53 9 100 * 100 9 100
Surry CC 2,694 41 63 19 84 8 100
Caldwell CC & TI 2,720 52 65 11 91 23 83
Sandhills CC 2,770 26 73 7 71
Vance- Granville CC 2,870 65 65 10 60 * 100 10 90
Wayne CC 2,938 48 31 10 80 7 100
3,000 - 4,999
Catawba Valley CC 3,115 35 63 22 82 8 88
Rowan Cabarrus CC 3,211 112 72 48 92 21 67 32 91
Gaston College 3,323 73 45 17 65 6 100 20 80
Durham TCC 3,439 144 85
Asheville- Buncombe TCC 3,669 97 62 25 88 13 77 6 100 7 100
Coastal Carolina CC 3,682 66 73 14 86 8 88
Central Carolina CC 3,803 56 63 45 60 6 83 19 95
Pitt CC 3,905 93 59 6 83
Cape Fear CC 3,914 51 73 * 75 7 86 15 100
Forsyth TCC 4,217 111 70 30 90
> 4,999
Guilford TCC 5,997 132 59 268 88 9 89 8 100
Wake TCC 6,848 153 69 16 88 42 83 16 75
Fayetteville TCC 8,314 100 65 227 88 8 100 17 94
Central Piedmont CC 9,743 116 87 136 99 15 100
Union Technical 17 77 13 85 11 100
System Total 143,338 2,834 62 1,240 83 548 77 457 90 39 95
* Number of test takers too small to report without violating students' privacy. 31
PASSING RATES ON LICENSING AND CERTIFICATION EXAMINATIONS, 1998
-- INSURANCE--
FIRST- TIME TEST TAKERS
LIFE & HEALTH PROPERTY & LIABILITY MEDICARE SUPP/ LTC
INSTITUTION FTE # TESTED % PASSED # TESTED % PASSED # TESTED % PASSED
< 1,000
Pamlico CC 201
Montgomery CC 692
Bladen CC 779
Roanoke- Chowan CC 866
Mayland CC 879
Tri- County CC 893
Martin CC 919 8 63 * 100
Brunswick CC 971
1,000 - 1,999
James Sprunt CC 1,086
Anson CC 1,135
McDowell TCC 1,268
Sampson CC 1,352
Carteret CC 1,392 * 50 10 50
Piedmont CC 1,398
Isothermal CC 1,530 * 100 * 0
Mitchell CC 1,535 9 78 * 0 * 100
Halifax CC 1,548
Haywood CC 1,601
Blue Ridge CC 1,607
Beaufort County CC 1,638
Randolph CC 1,664 * 100 8 38
Richmond CC 1,664
Wilson TCC 1,667 11 64 * 50 * 50
Stanly CC 1,694 5 80
Rockingham CC 1,810
Nash CC 1,831 17 65 20 25
Edgecombe CC 1,848
Cleveland CC 1,852
Southwestern CC 1,894
College of the Albemarle 1,932 15 47
2,000 - 2,999
Southeastern CC 2,030 * 100 * 0
Craven CC 2,173
Robeson CC 2,213 * 100
Wilkes CC 2,270 5 100 * 100
Lenoir CC 2,274 31 71 40 65 22 82
Western Piedmont CC 2,290
Davidson County CC 2,444
Johnston CC 2,636 * 33
Alamance CC 2,690 6 67 11 73
Surry CC 2,694 * 33
Caldwell CC & TI 2,720
Sandhills CC 2,770
Vance- Granville CC 2,870
Wayne CC 2,938 9 78 6 67
3,000 - 4,999
Catawba Valley CC 3,115 25 64 26 62
Rowan Cabarrus CC 3,211
Gaston College 3,323
Durham TCC 3,439
Asheville- Buncombe TCC 3,669 61 66 52 79
Coastal Carolina CC 3,682 * 33 9 78
Central Carolina CC 3,803
Pitt CC 3,905 5 100 12 42
Cape Fear CC 3,914
Forsyth TCC 4,217 17 82 6 50 12 58
> 4,999
Guilford TCC 5,997 20 75 13 85 8 38
Wake TCC 6,848
Fayetteville TCC 8,314 15 93 23 87 5 80
Central Piedmont CC 9,743 107 68 71 58 16 69
System Total 143,338 362 71 286 58 122 74
* Number of test takers too small to report without violating students' privacy. 32
PASSING RATES ON LICENSING AND CERTIFICATION EXAMINATIONS, 1997- 98
-- MEDICAL SONOGRAPHY--
FIRST- TIME TEST TAKERS
PHYSICS ABDOMEN OB- GYN
INSTITUTION FTE # TESTED % PASSED # TESTED % PASSED # TESTED % PASSED
< 1,000
Pamlico CC 201
Montgomery CC 692
Bladen CC 779
Roanoke- Chowan CC 866
Mayland CC 879
Tri- County CC 893
Martin CC 919
Brunswick CC 971
1,000 - 1,999
James Sprunt CC 1,086
Anson CC 1,135
McDowell TCC 1,268
Sampson CC 1,352
Carteret CC 1,392
Piedmont CC 1,398
Isothermal CC 1,530
Mitchell CC 1,535
Halifax CC 1,548
Haywood CC 1,601
Blue Ridge CC 1,607
Beaufort County CC 1,638
Randolph CC 1,664
Richmond CC 1,664
Wilson TCC 1,667
Stanly CC 1,694
Rockingham CC 1,810
Nash CC 1,831
Edgecombe CC 1,848
Cleveland CC 1,852
Southwestern CC 1,894
College of the Albemarle 1,932
2,000 - 2,999
Southeastern CC 2,030
Craven CC 2,173
Robeson CC 2,213
Wilkes CC 2,270
Lenoir CC 2,274
Western Piedmont CC 2,290
Davidson County CC 2,444
Johnston CC 2,636
Alamance CC 2,690
Surry CC 2,694
Caldwell CC & TI 2,720 7 100 * 50 7 71
Sandhills CC 2,770
Vance- Granville CC 2,870
Wayne CC 2,938
3,000 - 4,999
Catawba Valley CC 3,115
Rowan Cabarrus CC 3,211
Gaston College 3,323
Durham TCC 3,439
Asheville- Buncombe TCC 3,669
Coastal Carolina CC 3,682
Central Carolina CC 3,803
Pitt CC 3,905
Cape Fear CC 3,914
Forsyth TCC 4,217 5 20 7 86 * 33
> 4,999
Guilford TCC 5,997
Wake TCC 6,848
Fayetteville TCC 8,314
Central Piedmont CC 9,743
System Total 143,338 12 62 9 78 10 60
* Number of test takers too small to report without violating students' privacy. 33
PASSING RATES ON LICENSING AND CERTIFICATION EXAMINATIONS, 1998
-- NURSING--
FIRST- TIME TEST TAKERS
PRACTICAL NURSING REGISTERED NURSING
INSTITUTION FTE # TESTED % PASSED # TESTED % PASSED
< 1,000
Pamlico CC 201
Montgomery CC 692 22 82
Bladen CC 779 18 100
Roanoke- Chowan CC 866 9 100 14 86
Mayland CC 879 13 92 24 75
Tri- County CC 893 12 100 9 78
Martin CC 919
Brunswick CC 971 21 71
1,000 - 1,999
James Sprunt CC 1,086 18 78 23 74
Anson CC 1,135 11 91
McDowell TCC 1,268 15 87
Sampson CC 1,352 12 92 29 97
Carteret CC 1,392 19 100
Piedmont CC 1,398 10 100 16 63
Isothermal CC 1,530 25 76
Mitchell CC 1,535 36 75
Halifax CC 1,548
Haywood CC 1,601 11 100 14 64
Blue Ridge CC 1,607 20 100
Beaufort County CC 1,638 15 100 19 95
Randolph CC 1,664 24 75
Richmond CC 1,664 31 100
Wilson TCC 1,667
Stanly CC 1,694 11 100 31 94
Rockingham CC 1,810 19 84 24 96
Nash CC 1,831
Edgecombe CC 1,848
Cleveland CC 1,852 13 100
Southwestern CC 1,894 12 92
College of the Albemarle 1,932 15 93 30 77
2,000 - 2,999
Southeastern CC 2,030 18 100 44 91
Craven CC 2,173 13 54 32 94
Robeson CC 2,213 22 100 33 94
Wilkes CC 2,270 27 81
Lenoir CC 2,274 11 100 22 91
Western Piedmont CC 2,290 42 88
Davidson County CC 2,444 32 97
Johnston CC 2,636 14 100 22 100
Alamance CC 2,690 21 100 32 78
Surry CC 2,694 23 96 44 93
Caldwell CC & TI 2,720 31 100 31 87
Sandhills CC 2,770 11 100 48 88
Vance- Granville CC 2,870 31 81
Wayne CC 2,938 10 80 32 97
3,000 - 4,999
Catawba Valley CC 3,115 33 85
Rowan Cabarrus CC 3,211 * 100 39 97
Gaston College 3,323 23 100 28 96
Durham TCC 3,439 25 96 37 70
Asheville- Buncombe TCC 3,669 26 100 61 84
Coastal Carolina CC 3,682 16 81 24 96
Central Carolina CC 3,803 49 92 43 74
Pitt CC 3,905 29 100 46 96
Cape Fear CC 3,914 13 77 24 96
Forsyth TCC 4,217 27 93 93 87
> 4,999
Guilford TCC 5,997 27 96 51 92
Wake TCC 6,848 66 97
Fayetteville TCC 8,314 16 88 66 94
Central Piedmont CC 9,743 49 82
Foothills NRSG CONS. 38 82
NEWH NSG Consortium 73 100 98 73
System Total 143,338 788 93 1,624 87
* Number of test takers too small to report without violating students' privacy. 34
PASSING RATES ON LICENSING AND CERTIFICATION EXAMINATIONS, 1997- 98
OPTICIANRY-- VETERINARY MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY
FIRST- TIME TEST TAKERS
OPTICIANRY VET. MED. TECH.
INSTITUTION FTE # TESTED % PASSED # TESTED % PASSED
< 1,000
Pamlico CC 201
Montgomery CC 692
Bladen CC 779
Roanoke- Chowan CC 866
Mayland CC 879
Tri- County CC 893
Martin CC 919
Brunswick CC 971
1,000 - 2,000
James Sprunt CC 1,086
Anson CC 1,135
McDowell TCC 1,268
Sampson CC 1,352
Carteret CC 1,392
Piedmont CC 1,398
Isothermal CC 1,530
Mitchell CC 1,535
Halifax CC 1,548
Haywood CC 1,601
Blue Ridge CC 1,607
Beaufort County CC 1,638
Randolph CC 1,664
Richmond CC 1,664
Wilson TCC 1,667
Stanly CC 1,694
Rockingham CC 1,810
Nash CC 1,831
Edgecombe CC 1,848
Cleveland CC 1,852
Southwestern CC 1,894
College of the Albemarle 1,932
2,000 - 2,999
Southeastern CC 2,030
Craven CC 2,173
Robeson CC 2,213
Wilkes CC 2,270
Lenoir CC 2,274
Western Piedmont CC 2,290
Davidson County CC 2,444
Johnston CC 2,636
Alamance CC 2,690
Surry CC 2,694
Caldwell CC & TI 2,720
Sandhills CC 2,770
Vance- Granville CC 2,870
Wayne CC 2,938
3,000 - 4,999
Catawba Valley CC 3,115
Rowan Cabarrus CC 3,211
Gaston College 3,323 20 100
Durham TCC 3,439 12 58
Asheville- Buncombe TCC 3,669
Coastal Carolina CC 3,682
Central Carolina CC 3,803 27 93
Pitt CC 3,905
Cape Fear CC 3,914
Forsyth TCC 4,217
> 4,999
Guilford TCC 5,997
Wake TCC 6,848
Fayetteville TCC 8,314
Central Piedmont CC 9,743
System Total 143,338 12 58 47 96
35
PASSING RATES ON LICENSING AND CERTIFICATION EXAMINATIONS, 1997- 98
RADIOGRAPHY-- NUCLEAR MEDICINE TECHNOLOGY--
RADIATION THERAPY TECHNOLOGY
FIRST- TIME TEST TAKERS
RADIOGRAPHY NUC. MED. TECH. RAD. THER. TECH.
INSTITUTION FTE # TESTED % PASSED # TESTED % PASSED # TESTED % PASSED
< 1,000
Pamlico CC 201
Montgomery CC 692
Bladen CC 779
Roanoke- Chowan CC 866
Mayland CC 879
Tri- County CC 893
Martin CC 919
Brunswick CC 971
1,000 - 1,999
James Sprunt CC 1,086
Anson CC 1,135
McDowell TCC 1,268
Sampson CC 1,352
Carteret CC 1,392 8 87
Piedmont CC 1,398
Isothermal CC 1,530
Mitchell CC 1,535
Halifax CC 1,548
Haywood CC 1,601
Blue Ridge CC 1,607
Beaufort County CC 1,638
Randolph CC 1,664
Richmond CC 1,664
Wilson TCC 1,667
Stanly CC 1,694
Rockingham CC 1,810
Nash CC 1,831
Edgecombe CC 1,848 14 92
Cleveland CC 1,852 * 100
Southwestern CC 1,894 17 88
College of the Albemarle 1,932
2,000 - 2,999
Southeastern CC 2,030
Craven CC 2,173
Robeson CC 2,213
Wilkes CC 2,270
Lenoir CC 2,274
Western Piedmont CC 2,290
Davidson County CC 2,444
Johnston CC 2,636 17 100
Alamance CC 2,690
Surry CC 2,694
Caldwell CC & TI 2,720 14 100 6 100
Sandhills CC 2,770 7 85
Vance- Granville CC 2,870 18 100
Wayne CC 2,938
3,000 - 4,999
Catawba Valley CC 3,115
Rowan Cabarrus CC 3,211 17 76
Gaston College 3,323
Durham TCC 3,439
Asheville- Buncombe TCC 3,669 13 92
Coastal Carolina CC 3,682
Central Carolina CC 3,803
Pitt CC 3,905 19 100 * 100 5 80
Cape Fear CC 3,914 * 100
Forsyth TCC 4,217 19 73 * 100 5 100
> 4,999
Guilford TCC 5,997
Wake TCC 6,848 11 100
Fayetteville TCC 8,314 10 100
Central Piedmont CC 9,743
System Total 143,338 191 92 12 100 10 90
* Number of test takers too small to report without violating students' privacy. 36
PASSING RATES ON LICENSING AND CERTIFICATION EXAMINATIONS, 1997- 98
-- REAL ESTATE--
FIRST- TIME TEST TAKERS
SALES BROKER
INSTITUTION FTE # TESTED % PASSED # TESTED % PASSED
< 1,000
Pamlico CC 201
Montgomery CC 692
Bladen CC 779 * 0
Roanoke- Chowan CC 866 6 83
Mayland CC 879 19 58 * 50
Tri- County CC 893 21 48 * 75
Martin CC 919 * 100
Brunswick CC 971 44 66 18 78
1,000 - 1,999
James Sprunt CC 1,086
Anson CC 1,135 * 50
McDowell TCC 1,268 8 100
Sampson CC 1,352
Carteret CC 1,392 42 69
Piedmont CC 1,398 * 25
Isothermal CC 1,530 9 44 16 38
Mitchell CC 1,535 39 49
Halifax CC 1,548 18 50
Haywood CC 1,601 6 50
Blue Ridge CC 1,607 17 71 10 100
Beaufort County CC 1,638 * 100
Randolph CC 1,664 21 71
Richmond CC 1,664
Wilson TCC 1,667 8 38
Stanly CC 1,694 21 43
Rockingham CC 1,810 * 33 * 33
Nash CC 1,831 24 63
Edgecombe CC 1,848
Cleveland CC 1,852 9 44
Southwestern CC 1,894 43 70 * 0
College of the Albemarle 1,932 17 47 * 100
2,000 - 2,999
Southeastern CC 2,030 7 43
Craven CC 2,173 * 50 * 0
Robeson CC 2,213 5 80
Wilkes CC 2,270 10 70
Lenoir CC 2,274 9 78
Western Piedmont CC 2,290 13 54 6 33
Davidson County CC 2,444 39 62 * 0
Johnston CC 2,636 27 70
Alamance CC 2,690 51 86 77 75
Surry CC 2,694 23 70 26 69
Caldwell CC & TI 2,720 21 48 * 50
Sandhills CC 2,770 18 50 11 45
Vance- Granville CC 2,870 11 91
Wayne CC 2,938 * 100
3,000 - 4,999
Catawba Valley CC 3,115 28 61 * 100
Rowan Cabarrus CC 3,211 55 82 * 0
Gaston College 3,323 75 52
Durham TCC 3,439 58 74 14 57
Asheville- Buncombe TCC 3,669 22 55 10 50
Coastal Carolina CC 3,682 48 44
Central Carolina CC 3,803 27 56 * 0
Pitt CC 3,905 21 52 13 92
Cape Fear CC 3,914 10 100
Forsyth TCC 4,217 31 71 8 63
> 4,999
Guilford TCC 5,997 70 59 29 83
Wake TCC 6,848 48 77 14 64
Fayetteville TCC 8,314 41 73
Central Piedmont CC 9,743 263 59 25 72
System Total 143,338 1,422 62 303 67
* Number of test takers too small to report without violating students' privacy. 37
38
PROFESSIONAL BOARD CONTACTS FOR CSF MEASURE
I. E. LICENSURE PASSING RATES
EXAM AGENCY CONTACT
Basic Law Enforcement NC Dept. of Justice Ray Hamilton
919/ 716- 6475
Cosmetology NC State Board of Cosmetology Carolyn Murray
919/ 733- 4120
Dental Assisting Dental Assisting National Board Inc. Dawn Meyer
312/ 642- 3368
Dental Hygiene NC State Board of Dental Examiners Jennifer Daniels
919/ 781- 4901
Emergency Medical Technician NC Dept. of Human Resources
919/ 733- 2285
Ray Smith
Insurance NC Dept. of Insurance Louis Johnson
919/ 733- 7487
Nursing NC Board of Nursing Teresa Williamson
919/ 782- 3211
Opticianry NC State Board of Opticians Carolyn Allen
919/ 733- 9321
Physical Therapy NC Board of Physical Therapy Ben Massey
919/ 490- 6393
Radiologic Technology The American Registry of Radiologic
Technologists
612/ 687- 0048
Dan Anderson
Real Estate NC Real Estate Commission Larry Outlaw
919/ 875- 3700
Veterinary NC Veterinary Medical Board Tom Mickey
919/ 733- 7689
39
STUDENT SUCCESS MEASURE F: Program Completion Rates
Background
Students attend community colleges for a wide variety of reasons. Unlike traditional
university students, a large number of students enrolled in community colleges are not
pursuing a degree. Some students are pursuing basic skills, others are in search of job
preparation skills or job retraining, and still others are preparing for transfer to a four- year
institution. These students attend community colleges to obtain specific skills or knowledge
that will enable them to attain their goal, which may be employment, transferring to a four-year
institution, or simply self- improvement.
Depending on the reason for attending, students may enroll in a community college for one
quarter or they may be in pursuit of a certificate, diploma, or degree. Further, many students
who enroll in community colleges do so on a part- time basis. These students, due to
employment constraints or family responsibilities, simply cannot attend college on a full- time
basis or even necessarily attend each quarter. As a result, calculation of program completion
rates and the assessment of the appropriateness of a program completion rate are difficult.
The calculation of an accurate program completion rate must account for student intention.
Therefore, since many students enroll in a community college without the intention of
completing a program, any calculation of a program completion rate must eliminate these
students. To be accurate, a program completion rate must be based solely on those students
who enroll in a community college with the intent of earning a certificate, diploma, or degree.
As of 1991- 92, student intent was added to the Curriculum Student Progress Information
System. Information is now being gathered at all colleges on students' intentions for enrolling.
Among the reasons for enrolling that students can select is the intent of obtaining a certificate,
degree, or diploma. With the implementation of the new Accountability Performance
Measures and Standards, goal completion of program completers will be reported in the 2000
CSF report. In addition, implementation of the federal Right- to- Know legislation has
mandated tracking cohorts for 150 percent of the time needed to complete a program.
Recommendation
The State Board of Community Colleges has adopted an Annual Program Audit for all
colleges to use in reviewing all programs and services annually. In addition, the State Board
has adopted performance standards for certain key measures in the Annual Program Audit.
Among the measures for which standards have been adopted is student goal accomplishment,
which includes completion rates, as well as other goal attainment by students. This measure
40
will more accurately reflect the success of students in programs in community colleges than
will looking just at graduation rates. Therefore, it is recommended that this measure be
modified in the future to examine both graduation rates and student goal accomplishment.
In addition, efforts should be made to identify the core courses in a program that enable a
student to leave the program possessing marketable skills even though the program was not
completed. With this information, a modified program completion rate could be developed
that would reflect students gaining marketable skills.
41
STUDENT SUCCESS MEASURE G: Passing Rates for Remedial Courses
Background
Students who enroll in community colleges are often unprepared for college level coursework.
Unlike the traditional university, community colleges maintain an " open door" philosophy and,
as a result, serve non- traditional students and students who may not have been properly
prepared for post- secondary education. For many of these students, the colleges must first
equip them with the basic skills and knowledge necessary to pursue college level courses.
Colleges have developed remedial courses for students who have deficiencies in core course
areas. The purpose of the remedial courses is to equip students with the skills and knowledge
necessary for success in their college studies. Once students have successfully completed the
remedial courses, they can then move into a regular college program.
The passing rate for remedial courses is one measure of student success. This measure
provides an indication of the success of colleges in alleviating student deficiencies and
preparing students for college level work. In other words, it is a measure of the success of the
colleges in providing students with the basic skills necessary for post- secondary education.
Because of inconsistent grading policies, it was impossible to compute passing rates for
remedial courses. A task force is developing a plan for collecting and analyzing the data to
ensure consistency in reporting. A computer program has been developed and is being
implemented at the colleges that will identify remedial courses, identify students who are
enrolled in these courses, and calculate passing rates for these courses. Data on this measure
should be available in the future.
Recommendation
The data on passing rates for remedial courses should be gathered and analyzed. In addition,
efforts should be undertaken to develop a measure of the success of students who pass
remedial courses in future college courses.
42
STUDENT SUCCESS MEASURE H: Passing Rates for " General Education"
and " Related" Courses
Background
Student success measures often focus on " end point" measures such as program completion
rates, licensure passing rates, and degrees awarded. While these are appropriate measures of
student success, they overlook the success of students while they are progressing through a
program of study. In addition, these measures often fail to capture students who enroll in a
community college and do not have the intent of completing a program.
Passing rates for " General Education" and " related" courses provide a measure of the success
of students in progressing through a course of study. These courses are designed to provide
students with traditional academic studies ( e. g., English, mathematics, social sciences) and
complement the technical and vocational components of their programs. " General Education"
and " related" courses can be thought of as that component of a student's program that
provides a " well- rounded" education.
Currently it is not possible to compute passing rates for " General Education" and " related"
courses. As with Student Success Measure G, passing rates for remedial courses, the
appropriate computer programs have been developed and are being implemented that will
result in the calculation of passing rates for " General Education" and " related" courses. These
rates should be available in the future.
Recommendation
The Common Course Library has been established and programs should be developed to track
student performance.
43
CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTOR II: RESOURCES
For any institution, educational or industrial, there is a critical mass of resources necessary for the
organization to perform at an optimal level. When resources fall below this critical mass level,
performance declines and quality suffers. The level of resources can be thought of as an indicator
of the health of an organization.
During the 1960s, resources for higher education were readily available. During the past two
decades, however, colleges and universities have had to contend with a shrinking availability of
resources. The demand by the public for tax relief and reduced state government over the past
few years, coupled with some revenue shortfalls, has resulted in ever tightening budgets.
While resources have declined over the past two decades, the demands on community colleges
have increased dramatically. Enrollment has continued to increase, with more and more North
Carolinians turning to the community colleges for job training and for the first two years of a
baccalaureate program. The role of community colleges in basic skills education and community
services has grown continuously over the years. Colleges are being asked to provide more
services to more people with fewer resources.
An examination of the colleges' resources will indicate the capability of the institutions in
providing quality educational programs. Whereas resources alone do not guarantee that a quality
education will be present, without the appropriate resources, a college cannot provide students
with an adequate learning experience.
The measures selected as indicators of the health of the System and the colleges as determined by
resources are:
A. Average Salaries as a Percent of the Southeastern Regional Average
B. Student/ Faculty Ratio
C. Participation in Staff Development Programs: Tier A
D. Currentness of Equipment
E. Percent of Libraries Meeting American Library Association Standards
F. System Funding/ FTE
44
RESOURCES MEASURE A: Institutional Salaries as a Percent of the Southeastern
Regional Average
Background
This measure is an indicator of a key " input" to education: the personnel who make it happen.
While it is true that dedicated people will provide high quality education for low salaries, it is
unrealistic to expect that education can continue to attract highly skilled, knowledgeable people
who have significantly higher paying alternatives. If these alternatives are in other educational
systems C if a dedicated teacher can teach elsewhere for more pay C it is even more unrealistic. In
addition, community colleges must compete for technically skilled people in areas like electronics
and nursing, in which the relevant labor market is outside education. Measures for market
competitiveness of salaries should be developed.
The 1997- 98 national salary data on administrative positions are from the College and University
Personnel Association ( CUPA). The data are based on two- year institutions from across the
nation. The median salary for each position is reported.
The 1999- 2001 Strategic Plan recommended that the North Carolina Community College System
raise salaries from 83.3 percent of the Southern Regional Education Board ( SREB) average to the
SREB average. Faculty salaries in the southeastern region have been chosen as a conservative
basis for comparison since these states are similar to North Carolina in terms of cost of living.
Other things to consider include the fact that technical education is a greater part of what
community colleges do in North Carolina than elsewhere, even in the South, and that technical
personnel are typically more expensive.
Furthermore, salaries are not measured or reported consistently between states and the data are
confusing. The average monthly salary, including fringes, is considered to be the most
comparable figure, since colleges and systems define full- time in various ways. The salary
question also involves issues related to longevity. A long- time faculty member may have a higher
salary due to seniority; or conversely, it may have been necessary to pay more to get the newest
person in a competitive labor market.
Because of different contract lengths for faculty within the System and across states, the data are
converted to a 9- month equivalent salary. This procedure allows for a more accurate comparison
of North Carolina salaries with salaries from other states. Thus, the data presented in this
measure are the average 9- month faculty salary for full- time curriculum faculty. However, it
should be noted that 70 percent of full- time curriculum faculty work 12 months, and only 21
percent of faculty are employed on 9- month contracts.
45
Implications
The data indicate that North Carolina has not improved its ranking in the southeastern region
despite the slight increase in salaries; and, it remains significantly behind the regional average for
faculty salaries. The increase in faculty salaries is worth noting - 6.9 percent. On the other hand,
for the 15- state region, the increase was only 1.4 percent. The impact of low salaries is reflected
in colleges losing key personnel, especially to industry, and in not being able to hire their first
choice in certain fields.
The data on administrative salaries show that the community colleges are behind in most
categories. Besides data on the median administrative salaries for North Carolina compared to
the national medians, information is presented on the percentage of North Carolina administrators
that are above the 60th percentile and those below the 40th percentile for national salaries. These
data indicate that median salaries for administrators in North Carolina, in most categories, is
below the 40th percentile for the nation. As with faculty salaries, North Carolina ranks low in
administrative salaries.
46
NORTH CAROLINA COMMUNITY COLLEGE MEDIAN ADMINISTRATIVE SALARIES
COMPARED WITH NATIONAL MEDIANS
EMPLOYEE CATEGORY CUPA MEDIAN SALARY
1997- 98
NC MEDIAN SALARY
1997- 98
Executive
President $ 103,000 $ 105,702
Executive Vice President 84,975 80,028
Academic
Chief Instructional Officer $ 74,847 $ 67,404
Inst. Research/ Planning 50,088 55,572
Administrator- Vocational 61,116 54,840
Administrator- LRC 50,115 47,364
Institutional Research 46,439 44,376
Administrative
Chief Business Officer $ 72,951 $ 65,082
Admin.- Accounting 52,335 48,186
Supervising- Accounting 44,172 38,286
Mgmt/ Plant Operations 52,036 34,824
Admin.- Computer Center 58,000 52,098
Computer Systems Admin. 48,623 36,858
Personnel Officer 52,372 34,548
Purchasing 41,529 31,092
Printing 33,619 22,200
Accounting- high 33,674 24,900
Comp. Programmer- high 36,889 29,760
External Affairs
Inst. Development Officer $ 50,582 $ 37,404
Public Information 45,839 33,258
Student Services
Chief Student Services Officer $ 65,970 $ 58,662
Admin.- Student Services 63,571 49,368
Financial Aid Officer 45,236 33,636
Registrar/ Admissions 50,698 36,708
Source: CUPA Administrative Compensation Survey, 1997- 98.
Planning and Research, NC Community College System Office.
.
47
MEDIAN SALARIES OF NORTH CAROLINA COMMUNITY COLLEGE ADMINISTRATORS AND
PERCENT BELOW THE NATIONAL FORTIETH PERCENTILE AND PERCENT ABOVE THE
NATIONAL SIXTIETH PERCENTILE IN 1997- 98
North
Carolina
Number
% Below
U. S. 40th
Percentile
% Above
U. S. 60th
Percentile
Position Title
U. S. 40th
Percentile
U. S. 60th
Percentile
58 29% 47% Chief Executive Officer ( President) $ 99,362 $ 107,978
24 46% 13% Executive Vice President $ 79,737 $ 89,139
48 65% 25% Chief Business Officer $ 69,118 $ 75,550
20 50% 15% Administrator- Accounting/ Controller $ 47,250 $ 56,353
44 59% 9% Management/ Supervising- Accounting $ 40,409 $ 46,324
23 13% 57% Mgmt/ Research/ Devel/ Plan/ Effect $ 47,525 $ 55,190
47 70% 6% Chief Instructional Officer 72,016 $ 78,053
7 71% 14% Administrator- Vocational $ 58,557 $ 65,595
33 58% 27% Administrator- Learning Resources $ 48,244 $ 53,948
38 74% 8% Chief Student Affairs/ Services Officer $ 62,913 $ 69,578
42 83% 7% Administrator- Student Services $ 59,750 $ 66,407
65 83% 6% Financial Aid Officer $ 42,253 $ 47,548
50 84% 4% Registrar/ Admissions $ 47,840 $ 53,125
61 92% 2% Management/ Plant Operations $ 47,963 $ 55,663
22 55% 14% Administrator- Computer Center $ 53,194 $ 63,276
66 89% 3% Computer Systems Administrator $ 47,277 $ 53,244
25 76% 12% Institutional Development Officer $ 48,220 $ 54,000
9 22% 33% Institutional Research $ 42,097 $ 49,028
36 83% 3% Public Information $ 42,034 $ 49,047
29 100% 0% Personnel Officer $ 48,747 $ 58,176
29 76% 7% Purchasing $ 36,656 $ 45,268
57 98% 0% Printing $ 32,305 $ 36,252
129 87% 5% Accounting- high $ 32,220 $ 36,722
25 68% 4% Computer Programmer- high $ 34,529 $ 39,050
Source: CUPA Administrative Compensation Survey, 1997- 98.
Planning and Research, NC Community College System Office.
48
NORTH CAROLINA COMMUNITY COLLEGE FACULTY SALARIES AS A PERCENTAGE
OF THE SOUTHEAST AVERAGE AND RANK
AMONG 15 SOUTHEASTERN STATES
YEAR
NC
SALARY**
SREB AVE.
SALARY
% OF SREB
AVE. RANK
1993- 94 $ 27,408 $ 33,470 81.9 15th
1994- 95 $ 29,234 $ 34,433 84.9 15th
1995- 96 $ 30,106* $ 36,146 83.3 15th
1996- 97 $ 30,124 $ 37,163 81.1 15th
1997- 98 $ 32,206 $ 37,677 85.5 15th
* Data published in the 1995- 96 SREB Data Exchange were incorrect. The data have been
corrected.
** Full- time faculty salary was converted to nine- month salary for comparisons.
Source: SREB Fact Book On Higher Education.
Recommendation
Improving salary levels is a major cost item. The work with the SREB and other agencies to try
to establish the monthly salary as the basis for comparison and to develop a consistent approach
to collecting and reporting the data should be continued. An improved data measure using the
CUPA report is currently being investigated and will possibly be implemented in the future.
Additionally, alternative benchmarks should also be investigated particularly in terms of market
competitiveness.
49
RESOURCES MEASURE B: Student/ Faculty Ratio
Background
A key ingredient to a proper learning situation is the opportunity for interaction between
instructor and student. In technical and vocational programs, where much of the teaching is
" hands- on," instructors must be able to give individual attention to students in the classroom and
in the lab/ shop. Unfortunately, as enrollments have increased, many colleges have found that the
only way to meet the demand for programs is by increasing class size.
The student/ faculty ratio is an indicator of the health of the System. As the student/
faculty ratio increases; it is logical to assume that the opportunity for students to receive
individual attention decreases. An increasing student/ faculty ratio also translates into an increased
workload for the faculty for there are more students to teach/ supervise/ advise and more papers to
evaluate. As faculty workload increases, so does faculty " burnout."
An appropriate measure of the student/ faculty ratio is currently being developed. In assessing the
appropriateness of a student/ faculty ratio, individual programs will need to be examined. It is
likely that what may be an appropriate student/ faculty ratio for a college transfer English class
may not be appropriate for a welding class where the instruction is more " hands- on" oriented.
Recommendation
This measure should be developed for reporting in the future. In developing the measure,
consideration should be given to the types of programs offered by the System. In addition,
comparable data from other systems should be collected.
50
RESOURCES MEASURE C: Participation in Staff Development Programs: Tier A
Background
Like salaries, participation in staff development programs is an " input" indicator of the quality of
teaching. Instructors who stay up to date in their field and incorporate new teaching technologies
and methods into their delivery provide better quality instruction. Staff development activities
also boost morale and creativity. Personnel in all classifications realize similar effects.
There is currently no way to measure the level of participation in staff development programs.
The only indicator available is participation in " Tier A" programs, which are funded separately and
have been restricted to certain types of activities. Before 1989- 90 only faculty were eligible for
Tier A program support. Other personnel also need staff development activities. Funding for
Tier A has remained at $ 1.23 million each year over the six years the program has been in effect,
thus not increasing even to cover inflation. In addition, restrictions on the use of these funds were
lifted as part of a flexibility measure to help colleges deal with the budget cuts of the past. Thus,
colleges were able to use the funds to meet any legitimate college need.
During normal operations, colleges spend additional dollars and involve personnel in
developmental activities that are not covered by these funds. For example, travel funds are
typically made available from college operating budgets to enable staff to attend conferences, etc.
Colleges also hold on- campus professional development activities not covered with special funds.
However, only limited funds are available from operating budgets.
An appropriate measure of participation in staff development programs is currently unavailable.
In past years, the number of faculty and staff participating in Tier A sponsored activities has been
reported. These data, however, have been very limited in that the type of activity and the quality
of activity have not been assessed. Simply looking at participation rates did not provide any
information on the activities and impact on college personnel. Indeed, if a college sponsored a
mandatory workshop for all personnel, then the college would have a 100 percent participation
rate, but it is not necessarily true that the college would have met the staff development needs of
its personnel.
Beginning in 1991- 92 it was decided to report on the percentage of Tier A funds that were
expended by the System and by the colleges. The data provide some measure of the college's
efforts in providing faculty and staff with staff development activities.
51
Implications
The data indicate that colleges are making use of Tier A money. It is still not possible, however,
to determine the impact of the Tier A sponsored activities. It is also not possible to determine
from available data the amount of additional funds expended by colleges on staff development
activities. Efforts to define a meaningful staff development participation measure should continue.
Data
PERCENTAGE OF TIER A FUNDS EXPENDED FOR
FULL- AND PART- TIME FACULTY AND STAFF
YEAR % OF FUNDS EXPENDED
1993- 94 94.88
1994- 95 98.00
1995- 96 97.00
1996- 97 96.00
1997- 98 98.00
Source: Professional Competencies Program Final Report,
Academic & Student Services, NC Community College System Office.
Recommendation
Efforts to develop an appropriate measure of participation in staff development activities should
continue. Such a measure should include staff development activities for all staff, not faculty
only, and should provide evidence of the extent of involvement, such as hours or days devoted to
professional development activities.
PERCENTAGE OF TIER A FUNDS EXPENDED
FOR FULL- AND PART- TIME FACULTY AND STAFF, 1997- 98
PERCENT OF FUNDS SPENT
INSTITUTION FTE 1994- 95 1995- 96 1996- 97 1997- 98
< 1,000
Pamlico CC 201 91 100 98 93
Montgomery CC 692 100 100 100 100
Bladen CC 779 100 100 100 100
Roanoke- Chowan CC 866 100 97 100 99
Mayland CC 879 100 100 100 100
Tri- County CC 893 82 100 100 98
Martin CC 919 100 100 97 99
Brunswick CC 971 96 100 100 100
1,000 - 1,999
James Sprunt CC 1,086 92 93 85 100
Anson CC 1,135 100 100 100 71
McDowell TCC 1,268 100 100 99 100
Sampson CC 1,352 100 100 99 99
Carteret CC 1,392 100 98 96 100
Piedmont CC 1,398 97 100 94 100
Isothermal CC 1,530 100 100 100 100
Mitchell CC 1,535 100 100 100 100
Halifax CC 1,548 96 99 86 65
Haywood CC 1,601 97 52 86 98
Blue Ridge CC 1,607 98 99 100 100
Beaufort County CC 1,638 95 100 100 100
Randolph CC 1,664 100 94 99 100
Richmond CC 1,664 98 92 89 62
Wilson CC 1,667 100 100 99 97
Stanly CC 1,694 99 100 67 100
Rockingham CC 1,810 100 93 100 99
Nash CC 1,831 100 99 100 100
Edgecombe CC 1,848 97 100 100 100
Cleveland CC 1,852 94 100 76 100
Southwestern CC 1,894 100 100 100 100
College of the Albemarle 1,932 100 100 99 99
2,000 - 2,999
Southeastern CC 2,030 95 99 88 92
Craven CC 2,173 95 100 99 93
Robeson CC 2,213 100 100 99 99
Wilkes CC 2,270 100 100 99 99
Lenoir CC 2,274 100 100 100 100
Western Piedmont CC 2,290 100 100 74 99
Davidson County CC 2,444 100 100 100 100
Johnston CC 2,636 92 100 98 99
Alamance CC 2,690 91 98 97 99
Surry CC 2,694 100 90 95 99
Caldwell CC & TI 2,720 100 100 100 100
Sandhills CC 2,770 100 100 100 99
Vance- Granville CC 2,870 99 100 100 100
Wayne CC 2,938 97 100 100 100
3,000 - 4,999
Catawba Valley CC 3,115 100 92 96 100
Rowan- Cabarrus CC 3,211 98 100 100 100
Gaston College 3,323 100 95 97 100
Durham TCC 3,439 100 100 100 100
Asheville- Buncombe TCC 3,669 100 100 100 100
Coastal Carolina CC 3,682 100 100 100 100
Central Carolina CC 3,803 100 100 100 99
Pitt CC 3,905 99 100 93 96
Cape Fear CC 3,914 100 100 100 100
Forsyth TCC 4,217 100 100 100 100
> 4,999
Guilford TCC 5,997 100 99 100 100
Wake TCC 6,848 100 99 99 100
Fayetteville TCC 8,314 87 89 91 95
Central Piedmont CC 9,743 100 93 99 99
System 143,338 98 97 96 98
52
53
RESOURCES MEASURE D: Currentness of Equipment
Background
If colleges are to prepare students for the increasingly complex technological demands of the
workplace, equipment that is appropriate to the skills students need to develop must be made
available. It is not possible to adequately prepare workers for 21st century jobs using 20th
century technology. A key component of fostering a " culture of quality" at community college
institutions is the availability of equipment that is appropriate to the skills being taught.
Manufacturing today is very different from a decade ago, involving more automated processes
that are computer driven. Today's worker must be skilled in this new technology if the needs of
business and industry are to be met.
To assess the availability of appropriate equipment in the Community College System, data were
examined on the age of equipment in use in the System. The assumption underlying this analysis
is that the development of skills needed in today's workplace requires experience with and
knowledge of equipment that is current and up to date.
Implications
The 1997- 98 data show that 53 percent of all equipment currently in use in the System is more
than five years old and 27 percent of that equipment is more than ten years old. It can be seen
that some strides have been made over the last two years in replacing obsolete equipment.
However, the fact remains that equipment is still aging at a faster rate than new equipment is
being purchased. Ninety- five percent of the equipment presently in use has a depreciating life of
five to seven years, requiring an ongoing effort to reduce the proportion of the equipment being
used for training in the System that is either obsolete or on the verge of obsolescence.
54
Data
PERCENT OF EQUIPMENT IN EACH AGE CATEGORY
YEAR 0- 5 YEARS 6- 10 YEARS > 10 YEARS
1993- 94 20 33 47
1994- 95 15 32 53
1995- 96 45 29 26
1996- 97 45 27 28
1997- 98 48 26 27
Source: Equipment Database, Facility and Property Services,
NC Community College System Office.
Recommendation
The five- year trend in the aging of equipment in the Community College System shows some
improvement. Over a five- year period, the percentage of equipment that was more than five years
old decreased from a high of 85 percent in 1994- 95 to 53 percent in 1997- 98. With the
technological advances over the past five years, aging equipment should remain a concern of the
Community College System. Further studies need to be conducted to determine the impact that
aging equipment has on the ability of community colleges to appropriately train students for the
workplace.
This measure should continue to be developed and refined. Future development should focus not
just on the age of the equipment, but on the match between the equipment being used in training
and the skills needed by workers in the various occupations.
55
RESOURCES MEASURE E: Percent of Libraries Meeting American Library
Association Standards
Background
Like current equipment, up- to- date libraries or learning resource centers are a key measure of the
health of educational institutions. They provide the resources needed by students of all levels in
the pursuit of education to support their classroom efforts.
The American Library Association ( ALA) has adopted standards for libraries or learning resource
centers at community, junior and technical colleges. Based on an institution's full- time equivalent
( FTE) enrollment, the standards establish " minimum" and " excellent" levels for various areas of
the libraries or learning resource centers ( e. g., staff, collections, budget). In effect, ALA has
established a " yardstick" by which an institution, or a system, can measure the adequacy of its
library resources.
Using the ALA standards, data on the System libraries were collected and analyzed. The purpose
of the analysis was to determine what percentage of the institutions meets the ALA standards at
either the " minimum" or " excellent” level. Only those factors in the standards for which data were
readily available were included in the analysis. Data related to services are not now available and
therefore were not included in this analysis.
Implications
Data on library operating expenditures, serial holdings, book collection size, library staff, and
square footage of facilities were collected on each college. This information was compared with
the " minimum" and " excellent" levels defined by ALA for each measure. It is important to note
that different levels are specified for each measure depending on the size of the college as
measured by FTE. In conducting the analysis, colleges were matched with the levels specified for
their FTE. Though the standards do not differentiate between FTE and curriculum FTE, such a
differentiation was made in this analysis. That is, our colleges were matched with the FTE level
for each measure based on their curriculum FTE, not total FTE. The result of this approach is to
make the most favorable judgment of our library resources, since in fact our libraries or learning
resource centers must also serve the non- curriculum students.
The data indicate that the majority of the System's libraries do not meet the " minimum" levels
specified by ALA, though over the past five years progress has been made. In 1996- 97, 23
colleges met the minimum level and two colleges met the excellent level for number of book titles.
This year’s data show a slight decline with 20 colleges meeting the minimum level and 3 meeting
the excellent level bringing the overall percent of colleges that met the standard from 43 to 38.
56
Data
LEARNING RESOURCE CENTERS: COMPLIANCE WITH ACRL STANDARDS
MEASURE BELOW
STANDARD
MINIMUM
LEVEL
EXCELLENT
LEVEL
# % # % # %
# of Book Titles 35 60 20 35 3 5
Serial Subscriptions 32 55 24 41 2 3
Expenditure per FTE
Minus Salaries 55 95 3 5 0 0
Library Staff 49 84 9 16 0 0
Square Footage 58 100 0 0 0 0
Source: Planning and Research, NC Community College System Office.
Percentage of LRCs Meeting Standard
1993- 94 1994- 95 1995- 96 1996- 97 1997- 98
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Books Serials
1993- 94 1994- 95 1995- 96 1996- 97 1997- 98
Books 29 36 43 43 40
Serials 52 43 52 50 44
Recommendation
In 1992- 93 the General Assembly doubled the appropriations for libraries at community colleges.
This measure should be monitored carefully in the future to determine improvements in the
number of colleges that do meet the ALA standards.
This measure should continue to be refined. Data on the number of services provided by each
college's library or learning resource center should be collected. The appropriateness of the
facilities measure ( square footage of library) should be closely examined to determine its
usefulness in assessing the quality of the System's libraries.
57
RESOURCES MEASURE F: System Funding/ FTE
Background
System funding/ FTE can be thought of as the basis for all other resources available at a
community college. It is the funding that makes possible adequate salaries for faculty, the
purchase of equipment, the enhancement of libraries, and the means by which to offer staff
development activities. Quite naturally, a high level of funding does not ensure that the
appropriate resources will be available at colleges; the funds must be managed properly for this to
occur. However, without an appropriate level of funding, other resources cannot be secured.
This measure was developed to indicate the trend in System funding/ FTE over the past five years
and to compare this trend with national data. As available information was analyzed, however, it
was found that the data were not available in a form that made comparisons possible. For the
System, the most reliable data found were on average cost per FTE. The data provide a measure
of expended allocations for the year as a function of FTE.
On the national level, a consistent, comparative statistic was not available. The National
Association of College and University Business Officers ( NACUBO) does publish information on
state appropriations per credit FTE student, but this information is based on a sample of
community colleges rather than on the System. In addition, NACUBO reports a State Median
statistic and a Mean of Medians statistic on the data. At this point, it is unclear as to the
usefulness and generalizability of these data. Because of the uncertain nature of the national data,
only state data are being reported.
Implications
The average cost per FTE for Curriculum, Basic Skills and Extension is reported separately. This
breakout gives better definition to this measure. The average cost/ FTE increased significantly in
1993- 94. Part of this increase was a result of the state moving the June pay date for state
employees and community college instructors from July 1 back to June 30, thus correcting the
action that had been taken in 1991- 92. This resulted in a 13- month pay period for most state
workers in 1993- 94. Since 1993- 94 there has been a moderate but steady increase across all three
areas.
58
Data
AVERAGE COST PER FTE FOR THE NORTH CAROLINA
COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM
YEAR AVERAGE COST/ FTE
Curriculum Adult Basic Ed. Extension
1993- 94 $ 2,812 $ 3,212 $ 1,953
1994- 95 $ 2,880 $ 3,308 $ 1,964
1995- 96 $ 2,990 $ 3,326 $ 2,090
1996- 97 $ 3,158 $ 3,609 $ 2,173
1997- 98 $ 3,264 $ 3,558 $ 2,807
Source: Annual Financial Report, Auditing and Accounting,
NC Community College System Office.
Recommendation
A measure of System funding/ FTE should be developed. Comparative data on SREB states and
on the national level should be sought.
59
CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTOR III: ACCESS
At the core of the Community College System's mission is its open door policy.
Community colleges in the words of founding father Dallas Herring " take people from
where they are to where they want to be." The special mission of community colleges is
to serve those who did not have opportunities to learn or who missed out on those
opportunities, and to serve people who have special problems to overcome. Thus, there is
an emphasis on reaching out to the underserved: dropouts, handicapped, economically or
educationally disadvantaged and other groups who are not traditionally included in higher
education.
There are many issues facing community colleges today, but perhaps none strike at the
core of our mission as hard as does the reality of limited resources in this time of
economic uncertainty. How long can the " open door" remain open when personnel,
services, and facilities are strained to their limits? As the demands on community colleges
continue to rise without a corresponding increase in resources, the " open door" that is the
path to opportunity for so many closes just a bit more.
The state needs to raise the productivity of its citizens, and these are times in which people
have a harder time being self- sufficient and raising families unless they have an education.
Providing access to education, a constitutional duty of the state in North Carolina, is
increasingly important to individuals and to society. A successful community college
system will reach out to underserved groups.
The measures selected to indicate how well the Community College System is performing
this role are:
A. Enrollment of High School Dropouts; Handicapped; Disadvantaged; Single
Parents; Nontraditional High School Diploma Earners; Inmates
B. Number Served by Type Through Basic Skills Programs and Percent of Target
Population Served
C. Number and Percent of Dropouts Annually Who are Served by Basic Skills
Programs
D. Percent of Students Receiving Financial Aid and Amount of Aid Compared With
Cost of Attendance
E. Percent of Population in Service Area Enrolled
60
ACCESS MEASURE A: Enrollment of High School Dropouts; Handicapped;
Disadvantaged; Single Parents; Nontraditional High
School Diploma Earners; Inmates
Background
The degree to which education is being delivered to the groups that need additional
opportunities is a direct way to measure access. A simple accounting of the numbers of
students with particular characteristics and/ or needs is one such indicator.
Colleges have been required to report in these categories for programs supported by the
Vocational Education Act and enrollees in basic skills programs only. Data for these
programs are collected because of the federal funding of those programs. The data shown
here apply only to the basic skills programs and programs funded by the federal
Vocational Education Act. They do not include all community college students and,
therefore, are not generalizable. Definitions of the categories are given with the data.
It should be noted that before 1989 B 90, students could not be enrolled in basic skills
programs if they already possessed a high school diploma. Therefore, the total enrollment
of these programs could be considered to be high school dropouts. Since the policy
change in 1989 B 90, enrollment numbers of dropouts in basic skills were not consistently
available. In 1991 B 92, the appropriate data elements were added to the Extension
Registration file to identify whether or not a student was a high school dropout. This
information, along with information generated from the Literacy Education Information
System ( LEIS), allows for the reporting of dropouts enrolled in basic skills.
It should also be noted that it is not legal to require students to supply information that
would categorize them ( as handicapped or economically disadvantaged, etc.) though they
may be requested to supply such information. Changes in the magnitude of the data from
year to year might reflect the willingness or unwillingness of students to supply the
information requested.
Implications
Community colleges are serving target groups in basic skills and vocational programs
funded with federal dollars. However, because the data are reported only on those
students who are directly benefiting from the federal funds, the data are not inclusive and
therefore have uncertain value as an indicator for all community college enrollments. As it
is with most student data, these data are self- reported and are subject to the willingness of
students to identify themselves with a particular group, especially for economically
disadvantaged and handicapped. Measure B provides more concrete evidence of the basic
skills programs' service to the target groups.
61
Data
SYSTEM LEVEL ENROLLMENTS IN THE BASIC SKILLS PROGRAM
HIGH SCHOOL DROPOUTS 1993 B 94 104,125
1994 B 95 ( data not available)
1995 B 96 107,386
1996- 97 109,581
1997- 98 111,542
HANDICAPPED 1993 B 94 14,649
1994 B 95 15,358
1995 B 96 14,217
1996- 97 13,980
1997- 98 14,985
MENTALLY RETARDED ADULTS 1993 B 94 7,172
1994 B 95 6,970
1995 B 96 6,687
1996- 97 6,591
1997- 98 6,422
PUBLIC ASSISTANCE RECIPIENTS 1993 B 94 11,889
1994 B 95 12,841
1995 B 96 11,083
1996- 97 10,841
1997- 98 9,975
HOMELESS 1993 B 94 2,326
1994 B 95 2,227
1995 B 96 1,846
1996- 97 1,585
1997- 98 1,425
INMATES 1993 B 94 12,763
1994 B 95 10,670
1995 B 96 10,866
1996- 97 12,195
1997- 98 12,835
62
Definitions
HIGH SCHOOL DROPOUT C A student who leaves a school for any reason except death,
before graduation or completion of a program of study, and without transferring to
another school.
HANDICAPPED C Persons who are sixteen years of age and older with any type of physical
or mental impairment that substantially limits or restricts one or more major life activities,
including walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, learning, and working. This definition
includes adults who are alcohol and drug abusers, mentally retarded, hearing- impaired,
deaf, speech- impaired, visually handicapped, seriously emotionally disturbed,
orthopedically impaired, other health impairments, and adults with specific learning
disabilities.
MENTALLY RETARDED ADULTS C Adults with documented mental retardation who may
benefit from the program. These adults may not have attended public school, attended on
a limited basis, or who simply need additional educational opportunities after leaving
public school.
PUBLIC ASSISTANCE RECIPIENTS C Adults who receive financial assistance from Federal,
State, and/ or local programs, such as Aid For Dependent Children, old- age assistance,
general assistance, and aid to the blind or totally disabled. Social Security recipients
should not be included in this category unless they are receiving old- age assistance.
INMATES C Adults who are inmates in any prison, jail reformatory, work farm, detention
center, or halfway house, community- based rehabilitation center, or any other similar
Federal, State or local institution designed for the confinement or rehabilitation of criminal
offenders.
Source: LEIS data, Planning & Research, NC Community College System Office.
63
SYSTEM LEVEL ENROLLMENTS IN THE VOCATIONAL EDUCATION PROGRAM C
STUDENTS ASSISTED WITH CARL PERKINS FUNDS
DISABLED 1993 B 94 4,208
1994 B 95 4,407
1995 B 96 4,626
1996- 97 4,379
1997- 98 3,813
DISADVANTAGED 1993 B 94 47,436
1994 B 95 51,454
1995 B 96 50,514
1996- 97 51,530
1997- 98 48,989
LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENCY 1993 B 94 1,841
1994 B 95 1,914
1995 B 96 1,769
1996- 97 1,968
1997- 98 982
CORRECTIONS 1993 B 94 3,970
1994 B 95 1,047
1995 B 96 3,464
1996 - 97 3,876
1997- 98 3,665
Definitions
DISABLED C When applied to individuals, means individuals who are mentally retarded,
hard of hearing, deaf, speech or language impaired, visually handicapped, seriously
emotionally disturbed, orthopedically impaired, other health impaired, deaf- blind, multi-handicapped,
or persons with specific learning disabilities, who by reason thereof require
special education and related services, and who because of their handicapping condition,
cannot succeed in the regular vocational education program without special education
assistance.
DISADVANTAGED C Means individuals ( other than handicapped individuals) who have
economic or academic disadvantages and who require special services and assistance to
enable them to succeed in vocational education programs. The term includes individuals
who are members of economically disadvantaged families, migrants, individuals who have
limited English proficiency and individuals who are dropouts from, or who are identified
as potential dropouts from, secondary school.
64
LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENCY C When used with reference to individuals, means
individuals C ( 1) Who were not born in the United States or whose native language is a
language other than English; ( 1. b) Who came from environments where a language other
than English is dominant; or ( 1. c) Who are American Indian and Alaskan Native students
and who come from environments where a language other than English has had a
significant impact on their level of English language proficiency; and ( 2) Who by reason
thereof, have sufficient difficulty speaking, reading, writing, or understanding the English
language to deny those individuals the opportunity to learn successfully in classrooms
where the language of instruction is English or to participate fully in our society.
CORRECTIONS ( CRIMINAL OFFENDER) C Means any individual who is charged with or
convicted of any criminal offense, including a youth offender or a juvenile offender.
Source: Annual Performance Report for the Vocational Education State Administered Program,
NC Community College System Office.
Recommendation
After collecting several years of fairly consistent data, efforts should be make to conduct
more indepth analysis of these data to understand how well they measure the ability of the
colleges to address the needs of the underserved. Where possible, data on the numbers of
people in the target groups within the relevant population should also be shown. It may
be possible to get new census data by zip code so that service areas can be analyzed.
Qualitative studies ( i. e., focus groups) could give a good picture of how target groups are
received on campus and what factors support their success.
65
ACCESS MEASURE B: Number Served by Type Through Basic Skills Programs
and Percent of Target Population Served
Background
The underserved are especially likely to need basic skills programs. This measure is
intended to show to what extent the various types of basic skills programs are providing
services to the undereducated citizens who need them.
Enrollment in basic skills programs is compared to the number in the target group, defined
as the 1,416,966 adult North Carolinians, aged 16 or over, who have completed less than
12 grades of schooling ( for those individuals 16 to 19 there is the additional requirement
that they are not enrolled in school). This definition of the target group is an
underestimate of those who need basic skills programs since it does not include people
who have spent years in school but whose skills do not measure up to the grade level they
completed.
There exist several different reports that present basic skills data on the System. Each
report is developed according to specific guidelines and therefore may report the data
differently. For example, data presented in the Annual Statistical Report now give only
totals for Basic Skills with no “ by program” breakout. Also, the data are unduplicated
using quarterly information submitted by the colleges.
The System data for basic skills enrollment have been revised and are now taken from the
Literacy Education Information System ( LEIS). The System data are now unduplicated
across basic skills categories matching the data on individual institutions that are also
unduplicated and represen

North Carolina Community College System
Planning & Research Section
April 1999
1999
CRITICAL
SUCCESS
FACTORS
FOR THE
NORTH CAROLINA
COMMUNITY COLLEGE
SYSTEM
Tenth Annual Report
NC Community College System • Caswell Building • 200 W. Jones Street • Raleigh, NC 27603- 1379
Telephone: 919/ 733- 7051 • Fax: 919/ 733- 0680
1999 CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS
FOR THE
NORTH CAROLINA COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM
Tenth Annual Report
Planning & Research
Keith Brown
Associate Vice President
Terry Shelwood, Associate Director
Institutional Assessment
Dr. Larry Gracie, Associate Director
Institutional Effectiveness
Dr. Xiaoyun Yang
Coordinator of Research Projects
Brenda Splawn
Research Technician
Vivian Barrett
Office Assistant
North Carolina Community College System
Published by
April 1999
iii
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 1
BACKGROUND AND DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................ 2
CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS MATRIX ................................................................... 4
FUTURE PROSPECTS ................................................................................................... 5
FACTOR I: STUDENT SUCCESS.................................................................................. 7
Measure A: Number of Students Returning from Previous Quarters................................................ 8
Measure B: Progress of Basic Skills Students .......................................................................... 11
Measure C: Number of GEDs and AHSDs Awarded Compared to the Number of
Dropouts Statewide ........................................................................................... 16
Measure D: Performance of Transfers After Two Semesters........................................................ 19
Measure E: Rate of Success on Licensure Exams...................................................................... 23
Measure F: Program Completion Rates .................................................................................. 39
Measure G: Passing Rates for Remedial Courses ...................................................................... 41
Measure H: Passing Rates for " General Education" and " Related" Courses..................................... 42
FACTOR II: RESOURCES .......................................................................................... 43
Measure A: Institutional Salaries as a Percent of the Southeastern Regional Average ....................... 44
Measure B: Student/ Faculty Ratio......................................................................................... 49
Measure C: Participation in Staff Development Programs: Tier A ............................................... 50
Measure D: Currentness of Equipment .................................................................................. 53
Measure E: Percent of Libraries Meeting American Library Association Standards.......................... 55
Measure F: System Funding/ FTE ......................................................................................... 57
iv
FACTOR III: ACCESS................................................................................................. 59
Measure A: Enrollment of High School Dropouts; Handicapped; Disadvantaged; Single
Parents; Nontraditional High School Diploma Earners; Inmates .................................. 60
Measure B: Number Served by Type Through Basic Skills Programs and Percent of Target
Population Served ............................................................................................. 65
Measure C: Number and Percent of Dropouts Annually Who are Served by Basic Skills
Programs ........................................................................................................ 69
Measure D: Percent of Students Receiving Financial Aid and Amount of Aid Compared
with Cost of Attendance ..................................................................................... 72
Measure E: Percent of Population in Service Area Enrolled ........................................................ 74
FACTOR IV: EDUCATION CONTINUUM.................................................................. 77
Measure A: Number and Percent of Recent High School Graduates Enrolled in
Community College Programs ............................................................................. 78
Measure B: Number of and Enrollment in Cooperative Agreements with High Schools .................... 80
Measure C: Percent of Tech Prep Students Enrolling in a Community College................................ 83
Measure D: Number and Percent of Students in the UNC System Who Attended a
Community College........................................................................................... 85
FACTOR V: WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT............................................................ 87
Measure A: Number of Employers and Trainees Served by: New and Expanding
Industry, Focused Industrial Training, Small Business Centers,
Apprenticeship Programs.................................................................................... 88
Measure B: Number of Workplace Basic Skills Sites and Number of Students Being
Served ............................................................................................................ 91
Measure C: Employer Satisfaction with Graduates ................................................................... 93
Measure D: Employment Status of Graduates.......................................................................... 96
v
FACTOR VI: COMMUNITY SERVICES..................................................................... 99
Measure A: Number of Courses Offered and Students Enrolled Through Community
Services ( Avocational, Practical Skills, Academic and Recreational)........................... 100
Measure B: Enrollment of Senior Citizens............................................................................ 102
Measure C: Support of Community Services ( Use of Facilities by Outside Groups; Support of
Civic and Cultural Activities)............................................................................. 104
FACTOR VII: PROGRAM MANAGEMENT/ ACCOUNTABILITY ........................... 107
Measure A: Annual Educational Program Audit Summary C Number Audited and Percent
of System Instructional Budget Cited for Exceptions ............................................... 108
Measure B: Number and Percent of Programs Reviewed .......................................................... 111
Measure C: Number and Percent of Eligible Programs Accredited or Reaffirmed .......................... 112
CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS FOR THE
NORTH CAROLINA COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM
Tenth Annual Report
April, 1999
INTRODUCTION
This tenth annual report on the critical success factors for the North Carolina Community
College System is one of several System accountability tools. The data presented in this
report are indicators of the health of the System, the extent to which the System is addressing
the needs of the state, and the success of the System as measured by student outcomes.
Where possible, data covering a five- year period have been presented to indicate trends
relative to the measures.
The original intent of the critical success factors report was to present data that would
measure the performance of the System. As the years have progressed, however, the report
has been modified to include institutional data on certain measures. In presenting institutional
data, no attempt has been made to rank colleges relative to performance on measures due to
the differences in the nature of the colleges and the quality of the data currently being
collected. Instead, in presenting institutional data, the colleges have been grouped according
to total full- time equivalent ( FTE) students and listed within each group in ascending order by
FTE.
In 1993 the General Assembly passed a special provision on accountability. The special
provision mandated that the State Board of Community Colleges review the critical success
factors and measures to establishing performance standards for those measures that would
indicate colleges' progress in addressing System goals. An accountability task force was
established during the summer of 1993 and began the process of reviewing the critical success
factors and measures and establishing performance standards. Performance standards for
certain critical success factors measures have been adopted.
Over the years, experience with the critical success factors and their measures, as well as
modifications in the factors and measures, has resulted in improved data collection and
reporting. While improvements have been made, there still remain some problem areas.
Emphasis will continue to be placed on developing standard definitions for certain measures
and for insuring the systematic collection of data by all colleges.
As in previous years, a description of a factor is provided at the beginning of each section of
the report. In presenting the data for each of the measures, background information on the
measure is provided along with the methodology of data collection. Following the data,
recommendations for improvements to the measure or for further analysis are given.
2
CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS
BACKGROUND AND DEVELOPMENT
Critical success factors have been defined as " the key things that must go right for an
enterprise ( in this case, the North Carolina Community College System) to flourish and
achieve its goals." The concept of critical success factors was developed at the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, Sloan School of Business for application in a business setting, but it
is applicable to any organization. The effort to identify these " key things" enables the
organization to focus its efforts. Thinking through appropriate measures for the factors
insures that the organization will examine its performance. Thus, critical success factors are
both a planning and an evaluation/ accountability tool.
USES FOR CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS
n Accountability
n Development of Strategic Goals
n Improvement of Programs and Administration
Measurements of the attainment of critical success factors are an important part of the
accountability system in use in the Community College System. A number of tools are in
place and in use by the State Board. The colleges are required to conduct a planning process
that includes goal- setting and evaluation of progress toward those goals. Other accountability
mechanisms include curriculum standards, review of institutional plans and programs, program
and financial audits, program monitoring and accreditation.
In its 1989 session, the North Carolina General Assembly adopted a provision ( S. L. 1989; C.
752; S. 80) which mandated that:
A The State Board of Community Colleges shall develop a > Critical Success
Factors = list to define statewide measures of accountability for all community
colleges. Each college shall develop an institutional effectiveness plan, tailored
to the specific mission of the college. This plan shall be consistent with the
Southern Association of Colleges and Schools criteria and provide for
collection of data as required by the > Critical Success Factors = list. @
The colleges, in turn, were granted a greater degree of flexibility in deciding how to use their
state funds.
3
This special provision is neither the first nor the last state initiative linking flexibility in the use
of funds with required accountability measures. Its requirements leave in the hands of the
State Board and the colleges the identification of the key factors that will be measured and the
specific approach that will be taken to measure them. The measurement of these factors
provides a way of showing how well the System is doing its job as assigned by law and how
well the System is addressing the goals set by the State Board of Community Colleges.
The critical success factors were developed by the State Board to measure the System, not
individual colleges. The state totals and averages do provide a benchmark for the colleges to
measure their efforts and institutional data on selected measures are presented in this report.
Still, the critical success factors compiled for assessing the performance of the System will not
be exactly suitable for measurement of any institution. For example, the percentage of
students in the University of North Carolina System who attended a community college is a
measure that helps System leaders evaluate our System's progress over time and compare our
System with others, but it cannot be meaningfully calculated for individual institutions.
Especially in these times when budgets are very tight, the performance of individual colleges
on measures such as currentness of equipment and meeting Association of College and
Research Libraries standards may reflect the results of hard choices made by individual
administrators, and not be inherently any better than the choice made by another institution.
Some measures are so important to any real attempt to assess success that their absence
compromises the result. Yet, some of these measures are not possible within the present
capacity of the System to measure. In the initial year, a commitment was made that since
resources for data collection at the campus level were already strained; no measures requiring
additional surveys or data collection at the college level would be selected. Last year we
began surveying the colleges for a small amount of data, and we have made some
improvements in the collection of data at the state level that enable us to provide new and
more in- depth information on some factors.
There remain some measures that are essential to a meaningful report, yet are beyond our
capacity. The most essential of these is persistence of students toward goals, which is a key
component of the Student Progress Monitoring System that is yet unfunded. Other outcomes
being developed are related to employer satisfaction with graduates and the success of the
Small Business Centers.
This report includes background information explaining why each measure was chosen, what
it is intended to show and the limitations of the data. The data and sources of the data, a brief
assessment of the implications of the data and recommendations for future changes in the
measures are given. Where appropriate, institutional data are presented on selected measures.
Recommendations for program changes indicated by the data are outside the scope of this
report.
The critical success factors were originally adopted by the State Board of Community
Colleges in July 1989 and amended in September 1990, September 1991, and in September
1992. North Carolina has adopted the matrix format of the National Alliance of Community
and Technical Colleges to graphically display the set of factors chosen. The matrix showing
the factors and measures is on page 4.
North Carolina Community College System
CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS AND MEASURES OF QUALITY, 1997- 98
FACTOR I
Student Success
A. Number of
students returning
from previous
quarters
B. Progress of
literacy students
C. Number of GED's
and AHSD's awarded
compared to the
number of dropouts
statewide
D. Performance of
transfers after two
semesters
E. Rate of success on
licensure exams
( where such are
required)
F. Program
completion rates
G. Passing rates for
remedial courses
H. Passing rates for
" General Education"
and " related"
courses
FACTOR II
Resources
A. Average salaries
as a percent of the
Southeastern
regional average
B. Student/ faculty
ratio
C. Participation in
staff development
programs: Tier A
D. Currentness of
equipment
E. Percent of
libraries meeting
ALA* standards
F. System
Funding/ FTE
FACTOR III
Access
A. Enrollment of
high school
dropouts;
handicapped;
disadvantaged;
single parents;
nontraditional high
school diploma
earners; inmates
B. Number served by
type through literacy
programs and
percent of target
population served
C. Number &
percent of dropouts
annually served by
literacy programs
D. Percent of
students receiving
financial aid and
amount of aid
compared with cost
of attendance
E. Percent of
population in service
area enrolled
FACTOR IV
Education
Continuum
A. Number &
percent of recent
high school
graduates enrolled in
community college
programs
B. Number of &
enrollment in
cooperative
agreements with high
school
C. Percent of Tech
Prep students
enrolling in a
community college
D. Number &
percent of students in
the UNC system who
attended a
community college
FACTOR V
Workforce
Development
A. Number of
employers and
trainees served by:
New & Expanding
Industry, FIT, Small
Business Centers,
Apprenticeship
programs
B. Number of
workplace literacy
sites and number of
students being
served
C. Employer
satisfaction with
graduates
D. Employment
status of graduates
FACTOR VI
Community
Services
A. Number of
courses offered &
students enrolled
through community
services
( avocational,
practical skills,
academic, and
recreational)
B. Enrollment of
senior citizens
C. Support of
community service
activities ( use of
facilities by outside
groups; support of
civic and cultural
activities)
FACTOR VII
Program
Management/
Accountability
A. Annual
educational program
audit summary--
number audited &
percent of system
instructional budget
cited for exceptions
B. Number and
percent of programs
reviewed
C. Number and
percent of eligible
programs accredited
or reaffirmed
* American Library Association
NOTE: Measures in italics are being developed for future reporting.
5
FUTURE PROSPECTS
The critical success factors aid the State Board of Community Colleges in setting strategic
goals for the System. By indicating how the System has performed and is performing
currently in key areas, the factors provide a foundation for adopting reasonable targets for
future efforts.
The critical success factors for the System provide a model for the individual institutions. The
National Alliance Model, which includes a process for developing, validating and revising the
chart, is recommended for developing critical success factors relevant to each college's goals
and mission.
Progress has been made in identifying measures that indicate educational outcomes for
students. The development of the Student Success Factor is a clear example of the emphasis
being put on the development of performance measures. As our experience with these
measures increases, additional performance measures will be developed and analyzed. The
focus will be on developing factors and measures that reflect the mission of the Community
College System in North Carolina.
It is to the interest of the System that the critical success factors provide useful and relevant
data to the public, the governing boards and the general assembly. They will reveal ways in
which the System can improve and progress, and provide a source for positive change by the
System's leadership.
7
CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTOR I: STUDENT SUCCESS
Increasingly, educational institutions are being called upon to support and document
educational accomplishments. This call for accountability is coming from the federal
government, state legislatures, and accrediting agencies. No longer can educational
institutions focus solely on the processes of education or on the number of students being
served. There is a public demand today for an accounting for public funds spent on education.
Put simply, the public, through government bodies and accreditation agencies, is demanding to
know what kind of return is being generated by the investment of public dollars in education.
Community colleges are operating under several new mandates relative to measuring student
success. The reauthorized Carl Perkins Act requires states to establish standards of
performance for students being served with Perkins funds. The federal Right- to- Know
legislation requires colleges and universities to inform prospective students of graduation rates
at the institution. The Southern Association of Colleges and Schools ( SACS), the accrediting
agency for colleges in the Southeast, has, for several years, required colleges to develop and
implement an institutional effectiveness process involving planning and the assessment of
expected educational results. The State Board of Community Colleges requires institutions to
submit annual institutional effectiveness plans to the North Carolina Community College
System Office that include the identification of expected educational outcomes. Beginning in
1994- 95, the State Board of Community Colleges requires institutions to review all
curriculum programs and services annually using a standard Annual Program Audit. Finally,
the State Board of Community Colleges adopted performance standards for colleges on those
critical success factors and measures that indicate colleges' performance in meeting System
goals. These standards became effective in 1995- 96.
The call for accountability renews the focus on students and student success. The
identification of the appropriate measures of student success for community college students
is not an easy task. Unlike traditional university students, the majority of whom are in pursuit
of a degree, community college students attend for a wide variety of reasons including pursuit
of a degree, transfer to a four- year institution, upgrading job skills, and attainment of basic
skills. Though progress has been made in the identification of some key student success
measures, continued efforts in this area need to be undertaken.
The measures for " Student Success" adopted by the State Board of Community Colleges are:
A. Number of Students Returning from Previous Quarters
B. Progress of Basic Skills Students
C. Number of GEDs and AHSDs Awarded Compared to the Number of Dropouts Statewide
D. Performance of Transfers After Two Semesters
E. Rate of Success on Licensure Exams ( where such are required)
F. Program Completion Rates
G. Passing Rates for Remedial Courses
H. Passing Rates for " General Education" and " related" courses
8
STUDENT SUCCESS MEASURE A: Number of Students Returning from
Previous Quarters
Background
Although there are many reasons why students cannot attend classes in any one quarter, or
why they drop out altogether, the quality of the program is one of those reasons. Students
who continue studies from quarter to quarter show commitment to a program and progress
toward completion. A report on retention in the Community College System was conducted
in 1987 ( Lincoln and Smith, 1987). That study is a more extensive discussion of retention
issues.
The definition of retention used in this report is based on the programs in which students
enrolled and calculates on the percentage of curriculum students who enroll in fall semester
and subsequently enroll in either the spring or the following fall semester. Specifically, for
students who enrolled in one- year programs ( certificate and/ or diploma programs), the
proportion of students who enrolled in fall semester, did not complete their program in fall
semester, and subsequently enrolled in spring of the same academic year was calculated. For
students who enrolled in two- year programs ( associate degree programs), the proportion of
students who enrolled in fall semester, did not complete their program within one year, and re-enrolled
in the following fall semester was calculated. The number of students who graduated
from a one- or two- year program within the report period was subtracted from the total
enrollment figures. Students in transitional programs were omitted from the analysis.
Beginning in 1991- 92 a new data field was added to the Curriculum Student Progress
Information System ( CSPIS) to capture student intent. Student intent was classified into six
codes to indicate why a student was enrolled at the institution. It was felt that, by knowing
student intent, a more accurate retention figure could be calculated. A separate analysis of
those students indicating degree, diploma, or certificate intent is provided.
Implications
The data indicate that 62.41 percent of fall curriculum students, enrolled in one- year
programs, reenrolled the following spring semester. Fall curriculum students enrolled in two-year
programs reenrolled the following fall at the rate of 52.40 percent. In both categories,
the percentages for degree seeking students is slightly higher, 65.36 and 54.10 respectively.
In reality, this measure examines student persistence rates.
9
Data
PROPORTION OF FALL CURRICULUM STUDENTS WHO
SUBSEQUENTLY ENROLL IN THE SPRING OR FALL SEMESTER
1- YEAR PROGRAMS
% RE- ENROLL
2- YEAR PROGRAMS
% RE- ENROLL
YEAR ALL
STUDENTS
DEGREE
SEEKING
ALL
STUDENTS
DEGREE
SEEKING
1997- 98 62.41 65.36 52.40 54.10
Source: Planning and Research, NC Community College System Office.
Recommendation
A more comprehensive examination of student enrollment data should be conducted as
resources permit. Factors that might affect retention should be examined. Information on
retention rates for other community college systems should be collected. In addition, a long-term
analysis of student enrollment patterns should be undertaken to determine more
effectively when students drop out rather than simply " stop out."
CURRICULUM STUDENTS WHO ENROLLED IN FALL 1997 AND REENROLLED
IN SPRING 1998 FOR 1- YEAR PROGRAMS AND FALL 1998 FOR 2- YEAR PROGRAMS
% of 1- Year Programs % of 2- Year Programs
INSTITUTION FTE All Degree Seeking All Degree Seeking
< 1,000
Pamlico CC 201 60.00 33.33 59.32 58.54
Montgomery CC 692 73.97 81.82 60.00 61.68
Bladen CC 779 56.54 55.33 52.91 52.20
Roanoke- Chowan CC 866 69.35 66.00 52.69 53.05
Mayland CC 879 59.86 61.76 58.29 62.15
Tri- County CC 893 48.04 50.60 46.71 48.51
Martin CC 919 72.58 75.51 61.64 62.50
Brunswick CC 971 67.91 70.54 55.73 55.79
1,000 - 1,999
James Sprunt CC 1,086 59.49 76.00 58.84 63.36
Anson CC 1,135 54.20 58.21 55.12 57.33
McDowell TCC 1,268 60.23 66.90 52.46 54.11
Sampson CC 1,352 52.13 60.32 56.31 54.88
Carteret CC 1,392 67.27 69.53 52.56 58.36
Piedmont CC 1,398 54.97 54.66 57.78 61.05
Isothermal CC 1,530 67.11 66.82 52.08 52.17
Mitchell CC 1,535 68.81 66.47 54.63 55.93
Halifax CC 1,548 54.55 52.83 58.67 61.40
Haywood CC 1,601 65.60 67.89 57.14 60.12
Blue Ridge CC 1,607 72.22 77.72 51.90 54.56
Beaufort County CC 1,638 60.15 63.56 57.37 60.60
Randolph CC 1,664 70.78 72.50 60.51 62.91
Richmond CC 1,664 77.63 80.00 57.19 62.10
Wilson TCC 1,667 68.58 68.85 55.56 55.50
Stanly CC 1,694 79.75 79.22 59.92 58.87
Rockingham CC 1,810 74.59 76.41 57.44 57.02
Nash CC 1,831 70.79 72.15 58.15 59.87
Edgecombe CC 1,848 53.75 56.16 50.78 51.41
Cleveland CC 1,852 60.57 63.23 53.34 54.16
Southwestern CC 1,894 52.10 55.14 53.15 53.70
College of the Albemarle 1,932 56.35 59.38 44.49 49.12
2,000 - 2,999
Southeastern CC 2,030 57.75 61.43 59.40 61.27
Craven CC 2,173 55.06 58.88 50.60 52.69
Robeson CC 2,213 44.11 46.31 57.12 57.89
Wilkes CC 2,270 64.67 70.14 59.96 62.41
Lenoir CC 2,274 75.48 76.67 62.78 63.18
Western Piedmont CC 2,290 62.50 67.35 61.98 62.96
Davidson County CC 2,444 63.08 63.19 58.89 58.66
Johnston CC 2,636 49.36 51.69 52.98 52.76
Alamance CC 2,690 55.92 55.83 54.26 54.13
Surry CC 2,694 62.53 65.69 56.07 57.78
Caldwell CC & TI 2,720 65.03 70.71 54.15 59.50
Sandhills CC 2,770 40.17 44.33 56.23 57.82
Vance- Granville CC 2,870 64.00 76.92 51.54 53.18
Wayne CC 2,938 64.57 68.13 54.59 56.33
3,000 - 4,999
Catawba Valley CC 3,115 65.77 68.91 57.58 59.65
Rowan Cabarrus CC 3,211 65.63 67.61 51.15 51.72
Gaston College 3,323 63.91 65.28 52.62 53.25
Durham TCC 3,439 70.82 69.47 54.23 54.16
Asheville- Buncombe TCC 3,669 65.67 66.15 49.14 49.29
Coastal Carolina CC 3,682 70.06 74.30 47.74 46.19
Central Carolina CC 3,803 56.72 67.67 57.58 61.11
Pitt CC 3,905 51.03 57.42 57.86 61.15
Cape Fear CC 3,914 61.42 61.65 53.90 54.71
Forsyth TCC 4,217 65.89 68.17 52.92 54.85
> 4,999
Guilford TCC 5,997 52.25 53.15 43.59 46.24
Wake TCC 6,848 67.13 67.52 50.44 51.09
Fayetteville TCC 8,314 71.55 71.91 44.12 47.00
Central Piedmont CC 9,743 54.84 57.33 46.27 48.89
System Total 143,338 62.41 65.36 52.40 54.10
10
11
STUDENT SUCCESS MEASURE B: Progress of Basic Skills Students
Background
In September 1994 the State Board of Community Colleges adopted four goals that set the
priorities of the System. Included in these goals were: upgrading, training and retraining (" a
world- class workforce"), and eliminating illiteracy. If North Carolina is to have a competitive
workforce, then individuals must be equipped, at the minimum, with basic skills. The efforts
undertaken by the Community College System in the area of basic skills are critical to the
future of the state.
In basic skills programs, as in all community college programs, the number of people who
complete a program is not a real indicator of the education being provided. Since it is not a
compulsory system, people are free to come and go as their life circumstances or interests
motivate them. However, they may benefit greatly from the classes they do attend and
complete. Many of the people who most need basic skills classes have not experienced
success in school and have fears to overcome before they are willing to attend regularly.
Moving from basic skills to a high school level education is a long and arduous process that
takes a great deal of commitment.
In basic skills programs, students are often pressured by lack of money, other demands on
their time, and by other barriers to continuing their educations. In spite of the barriers, many
adults do enroll for long enough periods of time to raise grade level abilities in reading, math,
and other skills, but still do not complete the entire program. With the testing programs put in
place in the last few years and with the student progress monitoring system; these gains will be
measurable and will indicate real impacts of the basic skills programs.
Two indicators of the progress of basic skills students were examined. First, data on the
progression of students through the basic skills programs were collected and analyzed. Using
the Literacy Education Information System ( LEIS), information was compiled on the
percentage of students who entered a level of basic skills and either exited the program during
the same year without completing the level entered; persisted in the level of basic skills
entered; completed the level of basic skills entered or completed a predetermined goal; or
completed the level entered and advanced to the next level of basic skills. In the case of AHS
( Adult High School) and GED ( General Educational Development), students who moved to a
higher level entered a curriculum or occupational extension program.
The indicator discussed above primarily measures the progress of basic skills students through
the basic skills program. Basic Skills, however, is really the beginning rather than the end of a
student's training for today's workplace. A second indicator of the progress of basic skills
students is an analysis of the number of students with an Adult High School Diploma ( AHSD)
or a GED who enter a curriculum or occupational extension program at the college. This
indicator is a measure of success for the student in gaining additional training and for the
System and colleges in providing a continuum of programs.
12
To determine the number of students with an AHSD or GED enrolled in the System, an
analysis of the annual curriculum registration and extension registration data tapes was
conducted. In previous years, these data files indicated that a student had a GED, but did not
distinguish between an AHSD and a regular high school diploma. In 1991- 92, however, a
separate code was given to students with an AHSD, thus allowing for this analysis.
Implications
In 1995- 96 the completion category of the following table was expanded to include students
who complete a predetermined goal. Previously, in the category of ‘ Exited Completers,’ only
students who completed a level and left the program were counted. Furthermore, in the new
category, if a student completes a level or goal this does not necessarily mean that the student
has exited the program; therefore, the category has been changed to ‘ Completed Level or
Goal.’ Data for Program Years 1993- 1995 have been deleted since these data no longer fit
the category as defined above.
The data on the number of students with an AHSD or a GED enrolled in a curriculum
program or an occupational extension program demonstrates the large number of non-traditional
students the colleges are serving. In 1997- 98 a total of 59,356 students with an
AHSD or a GED enrolled in a curriculum or occupational extension program.
Data
PERCENTAGE OF BASIC SKILLS STUDENTS WHO PROGRESS
TO ANOTHER LEVEL OF BASIC SKILLS
YEAR
EXIT, NON-COMPLETER
PROGRESSING
SAME LEVEL
* COMPLETED
LEVEL or GOAL
ADVANCED
NEXT LEVEL
1993- 94 25 56 ** 10
1994- 95 36 44 ** 11
1995- 96 22 31 35 12
1996- 97 22 34 32 12
1997- 98 24 30 35 11
* New Category
** No longer fits category definition.
Source: LEIS, Planning and Research, NC Community College System Office.
13
NUMBER OF STUDENTS WITH A GED OR AHSD ENROLLED IN A CURRICULUM
PROGRAM OR IN OCCUPATIONAL EXTENSION
YEAR CURRICULUM
OCCUPATIONAL
EXTENSION
GED AHSD GED AHSD
1993- 94 19,986 11,724 9,479 16,562
1994- 95 20,154 11,458 9,359 13,425
1995- 96 21,532 9,152 9,584 12,489
1996- 97 21,667 9,154 10,235 12,136
1997- 98 21,035 6,941 13,828 17,552
Source: Planning and Research, NC Community College System Office.
Recommendation
Refinements in the analysis of data provided by LEIS should continue. A system has been
developed to determine the level of basic skills achieved by completers who exited the
program as well as the personal goal accomplishment of students who exit without completing
the level of basic skills they entered. A long- term study should be designed to determine if
students who exit the basic skills program without completing their level of study re- enroll at
some future date.
Data on the enrollment of students with an AHSD or a GED should continue to be examined.
Colleges that have not incorporated the new coding scheme for AHSD should incorporate it
into the registration process. Efforts should be undertaken to match these data with the data
on students who earn an AHSD or a GED at each college in order to develop a measure of
the percentage of students who move from basic skills to some other college program.
PERCENTAGE OF BASIC SKILLS STUDENTS WHO PROGRESS TO ANOTHER LEVEL, 1997- 98
TOTAL SERVED COMPLETED PROGRESSING EXIT NON- MOVED TO A
INSTITUTION FTE IN LITERACY LEVEL/ GOAL SAME LEVEL COMPLETERS HIGHER LEVEL
< 1,000
Pamlico CC 201 217 53% 22% 19% 6%
Montgomery CC 692 528 9% 44% 38% 9%
Bladen CC 779 570 18% 46% 29% 7%
Roanoke- Chowan CC 866 761 11% 53% 26% 11%
Mayland CC 879 990 49% 10% 14% 26%
Tri- County CC 893 426 29% 46% 12% 14%
Martin CC 919 1,302 38% 34% 14% 14%
Brunswick CC 971 681 54% 21% 16% 9%
1,000- 1,999
James Sprunt CC 1,086 1,155 65% 10% 5% 20%
Anson CC 1,135 1,489 16% 37% 31% 16%
McDowell TCC 1,268 827 32% 39% 15% 14%
Sampson CC 1,352 1,325 25% 28% 32% 15%
Carteret CC 1,392 914 32% 40% 21% 6%
Piedmont CC 1,398 1,342 63% 14% 12% 11%
Isothermal CC 1,530 1,979 23% 49% 14% 13%
Mitchell CC 1,535 2,308 40% 26% 24% 10%
Halifax CC 1,548 1,617 41% 30% 18% 11%
Haywood CC 1,601 1,063 53% 6% 15% 27%
Blue Ridge CC 1,607 1,896 53% 14% 18% 16%
Beaufort County CC 1,638 1,225 38% 31% 22% 9%
Randolph CC 1,664 1,872 48% 24% 19% 9%
Richmond CC 1,664 3,229 21% 35% 24% 19%
Wilson TCC 1,667 1,767 7% 45% 36% 11%
Stanly CC 1,694 1,836 31% 32% 25% 11%
Rockingham CC 1,810 1,633 30% 32% 22% 16%
Nash CC 1,831 1,588 42% 33% 16% 9%
Edgecombe CC 1,848 2,264 13% 40% 37% 10%
Cleveland CC 1,852 1,393 31% 27% 29% 12%
Southwestern CC 1,894 1,424 18% 29% 37% 16%
College of the Albemarle 1,932 2,253 35% 35% 18% 13%
2,000- 2,999
Southeastern CC 2,030 1,616 32% 25% 26% 17%
Craven CC 2,173 1,476 49% 23% 21% 7%
Robeson CC 2,213 2,411 60% 13% 16% 10%
Wilkes CC 2,270 1,716 56% 25% 10% 9%
Lenoir CC 2,274 3,055 36% 26% 26% 13%
Western Piedmont CC 2,290 3,118 40% 28% 19% 14%
Davidson County CC 2,444 2,674 57% 15% 18% 10%
Johnston CC 2,636 1,983 36% 34% 26% 5%
Alamance CC 2,690 3,089 57% 25% 11% 7%
Surry CC 2,694 1,872 45% 23% 23% 9%
Caldwell CC & TI 2,720 2,478 55% 18% 9% 18%
Sandhills CC 2,770 2,164 20% 40% 32% 9%
Vance- Granville CC 2,870 2,894 30% 29% 24% 16%
Wayne CC 2,938 2,465 54% 17% 22% 8%
3,000- 4,999
Catawba Valley CC 3,115 3,230 83% 6% 1% 10%
Rowan Cabarrus CC 3,211 2,566 8% 40% 45% 7%
Gaston College 3,323 3,218 5% 40% 36% 19%
Durham TCC 3,439 3,194 15% 43% 33% 9%
Asheville- Buncombe TCC 3,669 3,219 23% 35% 28% 14%
Coastal Carolina CC 3,682 2,686 33% 25% 22% 21%
Central Carolina CC 3,803 4,231 23% 41% 29% 8%
Pitt CC 3,905 2,697 16% 43% 38% 3%
Cape Fear CC 3,914 2,041 24% 39% 28% 8%
Forsyth TCC 4,217 5,047 13% 40% 41% 7%
> 4,999
Guilford TCC 5,997 4,202 20% 28% 39% 14%
Wake TCC 6,848 7,555 17% 42% 31% 10%
Fayetteville TCC 8,314 5,348 33% 28% 25% 13%
Central Piedmont CC 9,743 8,309 67% 17% 12% 4%
System Totals 143,338 132,428 35% 30% 24% 11%
14
NUMBER OF STUDENTS WITH A GED OR AHSD ENROLLED
IN A CURRICULUM PROGRAM OR IN OCCUPATIONAL EXTENSION, 1997- 98
CURRICULUM OCCUPATIONAL EXT.
INSTITUTION FTE GED AHSD GED AHSD
< 1,000
Pamlico CC 201 42 11 69 35
Montgomery CC 692 138 23 78 71
Bladen CC 779 141 40 86 65
Roanoke- Chowan CC 866 228 9 2 124
Mayland CC 879 234 9 41 129
Tri- County CC 893 212 22 154 120
Martin CC 919 115 15 153 92
Brunswick CC 971 126 56 161 74
1,000 - 1,999
James Sprunt CC 1,086 170 28 112 64
Anson CC 1,135 441 42 154 192
McDowell TCC 1,268 274 20 28 158
Sampson CC 1,352 188 44 303 69
Carteret CC 1,392 266 66 193 341
Piedmont CC 1,398 284 45 101 72
Isothermal CC 1,530 211 131 12 135
Mitchell CC 1,535 318 54 412 306
Halifax CC 1,548 347 11 310 3
Haywood CC 1,601 176 13 127 145
Blue Ridge CC 1,607 355 34 292 227
Beaufort County CC 1,638 162 13 236 191
Randolph CC 1,664 244 45 77 643
Richmond CC 1,664 174 117 49 14
Wilson TCC 1,667 240 94 125 472
Stanly CC 1,694 320 117 282 454
Rockingham CC 1,810 206 63 87 225
Nash CC 1,831 282 57 331 121
Edgecombe CC 1,848 364 50 114 123
Cleveland CC 1,852 260 100 140 253
Southwestern CC 1,894 384 205 298 363
College of the Albemarle 1,932 56 293 64
2,000 - 2,999
Southeastern CC 2,030 272 84 249 143
Craven CC 2,173 441 45 323 222
Robeson CC 2,213 78 75 144 1,587
Wilkes CC 2,270 206 96 276 168
Lenoir CC 2,274 443 119 163 287
Western Piedmont CC 2,290 490 98 100 232
Davidson County CC 2,444 76 61 573 266
Johnston CC 2,636 460 118 3 430
Alamance CC 2,690 515 68 229 202
Surry CC 2,694 364 52 345 123
Caldwell CC & TI 2,720 497 196 436 163
Sandhills CC 2,770 396 43 197 175
Vance- Granville CC 2,870 666 47 653 442
Wayne CC 2,938 233 148 370 418
3,000 - 4,999
Catawba Valley CC 3,115 525 9 410 611
Rowan Cabarrus CC 3,211 376 337 11 725
Gaston College 3,323 711 214 470 414
Durham TCC 3,439 212 502 172 732
Asheville- Buncombe TCC 3,669 712 105 518 248
Coastal Carolina CC 3,682 514 74 53 442
Central Carolina CC 3,803 566 202 344 720
Pitt CC 3,905 621 104 3 272
Cape Fear CC 3,914 552 129 535 291
Forsyth TCC 4,217 475 561 25 1,045
> 4,999
Guilford TCC 5,997 811 676 973
Wake TCC 6,848 830 279 893 291
Fayetteville TCC 8,314 891 417 1,059 415
Central Piedmont CC 9,743 1,200 492 454 170
System Total 143,338 21,035 6,941 13,828 17,552
15
16
STUDENT SUCCESS MEASURE C: Number of GEDs and AHSDs Awarded
Compared to the Number of Dropouts
Statewide
Background
The great majority of people in North Carolina's workforce are people who are well past high
school age. Reducing the numbers of dropouts will result in raising the educational levels of
the workforce, but only gradually. If the educational levels of the workforce are to be
significantly affected in the short run, more mature people will also have to be attracted back
into educational programs.
This measure reflects the net impact of GED/ AHSD programs on the percentage of the
population without high school credentials. It does not show how many of last year's ( or any
year's) dropouts came back to get a diploma in a community college. ( That is the intent of
Access Measure C.) This measure shows how many people of whatever ages come back to
get their diplomas compared to the number of dropouts in any given year. The number of
adults without these credentials is reduced only in two other ways: by their dying or moving
out of North Carolina.
Ideally, the numbers of dropouts will continue to go down at the same time that the numbers
of GEDs and AHSDs are raised. That would be attacking the problem at both ends!
Implications
The dropout data for 1997- 98 will not be released by the Department of Public Instruction
until after its May 1999 State Board Meeting. Therefore, we are unable to show the affect of
basic skills training on the dropout pool at this time. However, the increased number of
GED/ AHS diplomas awarded demonstrates the critical role that community colleges play in
providing basic skills education to students who were not successful in the public schools.
Over the past five years, the number of GEDs and AHSDs awarded has increased steadily.
Except for 1993- 94, the number of individuals who do not complete public schools and need
basic skills training has increased. The 1996- 97 data showed the first decrease in the dropout
pool since 1993- 94.
17
Data
NUMBER OF GEDs AND AHSDs AWARDED COMPARED TO THE
NUMBER OF DROPOUTS STATEWIDE
YEAR
NEW DROPOUTS ADDED
TO DROPOUT POOL
GED/ AHS DIPLOMAS
AWARDED
INCREASE IN
DROPOUT POOL
1993- 94 17,371 16,528 843
1994- 95 17,844 16,797 1,047
1995- 96 18,203 16,913 1,290
1996- 97 18,235 17,144 1,091
1997- 98 Data unavailable. 17,758
Source: GED/ AHS Files, NC Community College System Office.
Dropout Records, NC Department of Public Instruction.
NUMBER OF GEDs/ AHSDs AWARDED, 1997- 98
INSTITUTION FTE AHS GED
< 1,000
Pamlico CC 201 * 50
Montgomery CC 692 * 52
Bladen CC 779 2 75
Roanoke- Chowan CC 866 * 120
Mayland CC 879 2 223
Tri- County CC 893 * 108
Martin CC 919 33 78
Brunswick CC 971 * 107
1,000 - 1,999
James Sprunt CC 1,086 9 87
Anson CC 1,135 48 176
McDowell TCC 1,268 * 104
Sampson CC 1,352 * 261
Carteret CC 1,392 73 193
Piedmont CC 1,398 * 210
Isothermal CC 1,530 77 157
Mitchell CC 1,535 * 316
Halifax CC 1,548 * 113
Haywood CC 1,601 * 133
Blue Ridge CC 1,607 17 373
Beaufort County CC 1,638 * 110
Randolph CC 1,664 85 257
Richmond CC 1,664 27 486
Wilson TCC 1,667 64 119
Stanly CC 1,694 95 132
Rockingham CC 1,810 * 118
Nash CC 1,831 38 158
Edgecombe CC 1,848 40 199
Cleveland CC 1,852 99 175
Southwestern CC 1,894 20 450
College of the Albemarle 1,932 47 340
2,000 - 2,999
Southeastern CC 2,030 35 210
Craven CC 2,173 35 126
Robeson CC 2,213 169 82
Wilkes CC 2,270 72 121
Lenoir CC 2,274 70 175
Western Piedmont CC 2,290 48 582
Davidson County CC 2,444 101 169
Johnston CC 2,636 134 65
Alamance CC 2,690 31 373
Surry CC 2,694 * 209
Caldwell CC & TI 2,720 31 505
Sandhills CC 2,770 1 350
Vance- Granville CC 2,870 51 383
Wayne CC 2,938 46 315
3,000 - 4,999
Catawba Valley CC 3,115 * 296
Rowan Cabarrus CC 3,211 52 314
Gaston College 3,323 110 577
Durham TCC 3,439 99 115
Asheville- Buncombe TCC 3,669 2 501
Coastal Carolina CC 3,682 40 338
Central Carolina CC 3,803 163 381
Pitt CC 3,905 31 259
Cape Fear CC 3,914 73 234
Forsyth TCC 4,217 98 470
> 4,999
Guilford TCC 5,997 201 492
Wake TCC 6,848 51 646
Fayetteville TCC 8,314 106 326
Central Piedmont CC 9,743 243 523
Anson- Stanly CC ** 148
St. Andrews College 7
State Office 117
System Total 143,338 2,869 14,889
18
19
STUDENT SUCCESS MEASURE D: Performance of Transfers After Two
Semesters
Background
The primary aim of community college transfer programs is to provide educational
experiences that will enable transfer students to make the transition to a baccalaureate
program and perform as well as the students who start out at the receiving institution.
Technical and vocational programs are not designed to qualify students for transfer.
However, programs such as Associate Degree Nursing and Engineering Technology allow
students to concentrate on practical courses in the first two years and to complete the
complementary portion of their programs later. Often, this enables the student to work in the
field while getting his or her baccalaureate. It also may accommodate students who do not
think they want to get a baccalaureate until after they have had some success in the early
portion of the program. This type of program is likely to become more popular, especially as
more working adults decide they want a baccalaureate.
All colleges now offer college transfer programs. Some colleges may also be involved in a
contractual program in which a senior college provides general education programs to the
community college students.
Performance data on students who transfer to a four- year institution are provided by the
University of North Carolina B General Administration and include only those students who
transferred to one of the 16 constituent institutions of the UNC System. No data are available
from the private colleges and universities in North Carolina. In addition, the data traditionally
reported are for any student who transferred to a UNC institution, regardless of the program
from which the student transferred or the number of hours taken at the community college.
Implications
The 1996- 97 data, unavailable when the 1998 CSF report was printed, is provided. However,
the 1997- 98 data from UNC- General Administration will be delayed and will be provided at a
later date.
Before 1996- 97, all 58 community colleges transferred students to UNC institutions; however,
data were provided in two categories - colleges offering and colleges not offering pre-baccalaureate
degree programs. Beginning in 1996- 97, all colleges were approved to offer
pre- baccalaureate degree programs. The data show virtually no change in the number of
transfers. The percentage of students in good standing has declined; however, the GPAs
show no large fluctuations.
20
Data
ACADEMIC STANDING OF TRANSFER STUDENTS FROM COMMUNITY COLLEGES
OFFERING
PRE- BACCALAUREATE PROGRAMS, AFTER TWO SEMESTERS,
END OF YEAR MEASURES
PERCENT OF STUDENTS* WHOSE STANDING IS:
YEAR NUMBER GOOD PROBATION SUSPEND. WITHDREW GRAD.
1992- 93 3,647 76.0 9.9 5.6 7.9 0.6
1993- 94 3,928 75.7 8.2 7.2 8.4 0.5
1994- 95 4,065 75.5 8.7 6.7 8.5 0.6
1995- 96 3,904 77.0 7.6 5.6 9.5 0.3
ACADEMIC STANDING OF TRANSFER STUDENTS FROM COMMUNITY COLLEGES
NOT OFFERING
PRE- BACCALAUREATE PROGRAMS, AFTER TWO SEMESTERS,
END OF YEAR MEASURES
PERCENT OF STUDENTS* WHOSE STANDING IS:
YEAR NUMBER GOOD PROBATION SUSPEND. WITHDREW GRAD.
1992- 93 375 80.0 6.1 4.5 8.8 0.5
1993- 94 336 77.4 3.0 6.8 11.9 0.9
1994- 95 170 75.3 7.1 7.6 8.8 1.2
1995- 96 145 80.7 3.5 9.0 6.2 0.7
ACADEMIC STANDING OF TRANSFER STUDENTS FROM COMMUNITY COLLEGES
OFFERING
PRE- BACCALAUREATE PROGRAMS, AFTER TWO SEMESTERS,
END OF YEAR MEASURES
PERCENT OF STUDENTS* WHOSE STANDING IS:
YEAR NUMBER GOOD PROBATION SUSPEND. WITHDREW GRAD.
1996- 97 4,050 65.0 ** ** ** **
* Numbers may not add to 100 percent due to rounding.
** Data not available.
21
TRANSFERS' FALL AND END OF YEAR GPA, COMMUNITY COLLEGES
OFFERING
PRE- BACCALAUREATE DEGREE PROGRAMS
YEAR NUMBER FALL GPA END OF YEAR GPA
1992- 93 3,647 2.61 2.61
1993- 94 3,928 2.60 2.59
1994- 95 4,065 2.61 2.62
1995- 96 3,904 2.66 2.66
TRANSFERS' FALL AND END OF YEAR GPA, COMMUNITY COLLEGES
NOT OFFERING
PRE- BACCALAUREATE DEGREE PROGRAMS
YEAR NUMBER FALL GPA END OF YEAR GPA
1992- 93 375 2.56 2.67
1993- 94 336 2.62 2.64
1994- 95 170 2.44 2.52
1995- 96 145 2.74 2.65
TRANSFERS' FALL AND END OF YEAR GPA, COMMUNITY COLLEGES
OFFERING
PRE- BACCALAUREATE DEGREE PROGRAMS
YEAR NUMBER FALL GPA END OF YEAR GPA
1996- 97 4,050 2.52 2.59
Source: Transfers' Performance Report, UNC General Administration.
TRANSFERS' FALL AND END OF YEAR GPA AND PERCENT OF GOOD ACADEMIC STANDING, 1996- 97
INSTITUTION NUMBER FALL GPA END OF YEAR GPA % GOOD
< 1,000
Pamlico CC 6 2.39 2.46 66.70
Montgomery CC 2 N/ A N/ A N/ A
Tri- County CC 18 2.43 2.72 66.70
Bladen CC 28 1.96 2.05 32.10
Roanoke- Chowan CC 24 2.70 2.71 66.70
Mayland CC 14 2.76 2.68 71.40
Martin CC 21 2.34 2.52 66.70
Brunswick CC 27 2.36 2.23 51.90
James Sprunt CC 31 2.36 2.41 58.10
1,000 - 1,999
McDowell TCC 17 2.34 2.63 76.50
Piedmont CC 24 2.72 2.78 70.80
Anson CC 3 3.15 3.05 100.00
Carteret CC 35 2.63 2.75 60.00
Sampson CC 30 2.38 2.47 66.70
Haywood CC 42 2.25 2.37 61.90
Beaufort County CC 40 2.69 2.74 75.00
Mitchell CC 49 2.39 2.43 55.10
Isothermal CC 50 2.43 2.58 72.00
Halifax CC 27 1.85 1.90 48.10
Blue Ridge CC 40 2.55 2.57 65.00
Stanly CC 24 2.39 2.60 66.70
Nash CC 32 2.55 2.58 59.40
Richmond CC 35 2.58 2.60 57.10
Wilson TCC 14 1.92 2.20 42.90
Randolph CC 32 2.82 2.67 62.50
Rockingham CC 64 2.79 2.70 70.30
Southwestern CC 68 2.30 2.56 72.10
Cleveland CC 26 2.02 2.18 46.20
College of the Albemarle 64 2.70 2.72 65.60
Southeastern CC 37 2.35 2.46 64.90
Edgecombe CC 17 2.51 2.48 76.50
Craven CC 74 2.64 2.75 67.60
2,000 - 2,999
Wilkes CC 63 2.53 2.63 66.70
Robeson CC 49 2.34 2.43 61.20
Lenoir CC 80 2.43 2.60 68.80
Western Piedmont CC 60 2.60 2.66 66.70
Davidson County CC 65 2.62 2.77 75.40
Surry CC 110 2.48 2.57 69.10
Caldwell CC & TI 47 2.62 2.72 78.70
Alamance CC 64 2.79 2.72 65.60
Wayne CC 84 2.36 2.38 54.80
Sandhills CC 149 2.42 2.48 61.70
Johnston CC 47 2.25 2.53 51.10
Catawba Valley CC 69 2.59 2.64 72.50
Vance- Granville CC 53 2.53 2.58 58.50
Rowan Cabarrus CC 53 2.36 2.37 56.60
Durham TCC 175 2.74 2.76 72.00
3,000 - 4,999
Cape Fear CC 208 2.44 2.54 61.50
Gaston College 138 2.28 2.38 58.70
Central Carolina CC 52 2.37 2.51 63.50
Pitt CC 142 2.49 2.56 71.10
Coastal Carolina CC 129 2.96 2.90 77.50
Asheville- Buncombe TCC 115 2.59 2.67 73.90
Forsyth TCC 135 2.32 2.48 53.30
> 4,999
Guilford TCC 183 2.58 2.56 60.70
Wake TCC 198 2.70 2.69 72.70
Fayetteville TCC 185 2.71 2.72 63.20
Central Piedmont CC 382 2.52 2.55 63.40
System Total 4,050 2.52 2.59 65.00
22
23
STUDENT SUCCESS MEASURE E: Rate of Success on Licensure Exams
Background
There are 27 technical/ vocational curriculums that prepare students for licensing and/ or
certification exams. A licensure requirement for an occupation is one that is required by state
statute for an individual to work in that occupation. Certification is generally voluntary but
may be required by employers or an outside accrediting agency.
Not all licensing boards have cooperated with the Community College System Office by
providing data on student success. This year, data from 14 of the licensing and certification
boards were obtained on 32 different licensure or certification examinations. The data that
were obtained are for first- time test takers who took the exam between July 1, 1997 and June
30, 1998. Exceptions to this are the emergency medical technician, insurance and nursing
examinations results that were for January 1, 1998 B December 31, 1998.
Passing rates indicate how successful the program has been. However, passing rates can be
affected by the native ability of the students or their preparation before entering the
curriculum. In addition, many students take coursework to learn a skill and do not necessarily
intend to become licensed. Since these students do not take the licensure test, the success of
programs in their preparation cannot be determined using passing rates on exams. Finally,
without established baselines on examination passing rates, it is difficult to make judgments
about what constitutes a " good" or " bad" passing rate.
Implications
In the case of nursing, graduates of associate degree and baccalaureate degree programs take
the same examination to become licensed as a registered nurse. In 1998 community college
associate degree graduates dropped one percentage point below the passing rate for
baccalaureate nursing program graduates.
Eight of the licensure/ certification exams had a passing rate for first- time test takers of less
than 70 percent. This is two more than last year. At this point it is not known why these rates
were as low as they were nor how these rates compare with the passing rates of other schools.
It is also not known what percentage of those who fail the exam the first time, retake the
exam and are successful. In the case of real estate, emergency medical technician and
insurance, it should be pointed out that students do not have to complete the program to be
eligible for the exam. It is likely that a large number of students taking the exam, especially
those taking the exam for the first time ( which are reported here), have only completed the
minimum required courses for the exam, not the entire program. In addition, many of the
colleges offering emergency medical technician, real estate, and insurance courses do so
through continuing education. At this point it is not possible to determine the passing rate for
curriculum students in those programs versus the passing rate for continuing education.
24
Data
PERCENTAGE OF NCCCS GRADUATES PASSING THE NATIONAL COUNCIL
LICENSURE EXAM FOR NURSES ( RN)
YEAR
# OF CC GRAD.
TAKING EXAM
CC GRADUATES
AS % OF TOTAL
TAKING EXAM
% OF GRAD.
PASSING EXAMS
% NON- CC TAKERS
PASSING EXAM
HOSPITAL
DIPLOMA
UNIVERSITY
1993- 94 1,963 56 95 97 90
1994- 95 1,798 56 94 94 91
1995* 1,810 62 93 95 94
1996 1,684 59 91 94 89
1997 1,695 59 92 94 89
1998 1,624 58 87 92 88
* The NC Board of Nursing started to report the results by calendar year.
Source: NC Board of Nursing.
25
PERCENTAGE OF COMMUNITY COLLEGE STUDENTS PASSING
LICENSING AND CERTIFICATION EXAMINATIONS
( FIRST- TIME TEST TAKERS ONLY)
FIELD
NUMBER OF STUDENTS
TAKING EXAM % PASSING EXAM
Aviation Maintenance
General 5 100
Airframe 1 19 89
Power Plant 3 100
Basic Law Enforcement Trng. 1,546 95
Cosmetic Arts
Apprentice 348 86
Cosmetology 644 75
Cosmetology Teacher 9 67
Manicurist 391 88
Dental Assisting 77 97
Dental Hygiene 118 95
Emergency Medical Technician ( EMT)
EMT 2,834 62
EMT- D 1,240 83
EMT- I 548 77
EMT- P 457 90
EMD 39 95
Insurance
Life and Health 362 71
Property and Liability 286 58
Medicaid/ Medicare Supp. 122 74
Medical Sonography
Physics 13 62
Abdomen 9 78
OB- GYN 10 60
Nursing
RN 1,624 87
PN 788 93
Opticianry 12 58
Physical Therapist Assistant 142 71
Radiologic Technology
Nuclear Medicine Technology 12 100
Radiation Therapy Technology 10 90
Radiography 191 92
Real Estate
Broker 303 67
Sales 1,422 62
Veterinary Medical Technology 47 96
Source: Planning and Research, NC Community College System Office.
26
Recommendation
These data are especially valuable. They have a direct and unambiguous relationship to the
quality of the program and should be carefully monitored over time. A standing
Accountability Committee has been formed at the System Office to review data and
performance standards reported in the Critical Success Factors Report. The committee, in
cooperation with colleges, is working toward improving performance especially where passing
rates are less than 70 percent.
The remaining licensing boards must begin to supply the data on community college
graduates. Difficulties identifying these graduates can and should be overcome. Comparative
data on passing rates for each licensure exam should be identified and collected.
PASSING RATES ON LICENSING AND CERTIFICATION EXAMINATIONS, 1997- 98
-- AVIATION--
FIRST- TIME TEST TAKERS
GENERAL AIRFRAME POWER PLANT
INSTITUTION FTE # TESTED % PASSED # TESTED % PASSED # TESTED % PASSED
< 1,000
Pamlico CC 201
Montgomery CC 692
Bladen CC 779
Roanoke- Chowan CC 866
Mayland CC 879
Tri- County CC 893
Martin CC 919
Brunswick CC 971
1,000 - 1,999
James Sprunt CC 1,086
Anson CC 1,135
McDowell TCC 1,268
Sampson CC 1,352
Carteret CC 1,392
Piedmont CC 1,398
Isothermal CC 1,530
Mitchell CC 1,535
Halifax CC 1,548
Haywood CC 1,601
Blue Ridge CC 1,607
Beaufort County CC 1,638
Randolph CC 1,664
Richmond CC 1,664
Wilson TCC 1,667
Stanly CC 1,694
Rockingham CC 1,810
Nash CC 1,831
Edgecombe CC 1,848
Cleveland CC 1,852
Southwestern CC 1,894
College of the Albemarle 1,932
2,000 - 2,999
Southeastern CC 2,030
Craven CC 2,173
Robeson CC 2,213
Wilkes CC 2,270
Lenoir CC 2,274
Western Piedmont CC 2,290
Davidson County CC 2,444
Johnston CC 2,636
Alamance CC 2,690
Surry CC 2,694
Caldwell CC & TI 2,720
Sandhills CC 2,770
Vance- Granville CC 2,870
Wayne CC 2,938 5 100 5 100 * 100
3,000 - 4,999
Catawba Valley CC 3,115
Rowan Cabarrus CC 3,211
Gaston College 3,323
Durham TCC 3,439
Asheville- Buncombe TCC 3,669
Coastal Carolina CC 3,682
Central Carolina CC 3,803
Pitt CC 3,905
Cape Fear CC 3,914
Forsyth TCC 4,217
> 4,999
Guilford TCC 5,997 14 86 * 100
Wake TCC 6,848
Fayetteville TCC 8,314
Central Piedmont CC 9,743
System Total 143,338 5 100 19 89 3 100
* Number of test takers too small to report without violating students' privacy. 27
PASSING RATES ON LICENSING AND CERTIFICATION EXAMINATIONS, 1997- 98
-- BASIC LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING--
FIRST- TIME TEST TAKERS
BLET
INSTITUTION FTE # TESTED % PASSED
< 1,000
Pamlico CC 201
Montgomery CC 692 10 90
Bladen CC 779 12 92
Roanoke- Chowan CC 866
Mayland CC 879 13 85
Tri- County CC 893
Martin CC 919 8 100
Brunswick CC 971 9 89
1,000 - 1,999
James Sprunt CC 1,086 9 89
Anson CC 1,135
McDowell TCC 1,268 18 89
Sampson CC 1,352 16 100
Carteret CC 1,392 34 100
Piedmont CC 1,398
Isothermal CC 1,530 7 86
Mitchell CC 1,535 38 97
Halifax CC 1,548 28 82
Haywood CC 1,601
Blue Ridge CC 1,607
Beaufort County CC 1,638 36 89
Randolph CC 1,664 23 96
Richmond CC 1,664
Wilson TCC 1,667 35 100
Stanly CC 1,694 44 91
Rockingham CC 1,810 39 95
Nash CC 1,831
Edgecombe CC 1,848
Cleveland CC 1,852 22 100
Southwestern CC 1,894 46 89
College of the Albemarle 1,932 20 100
2,000 - 2,999
Southeastern CC 2,030 21 95
Craven CC 2,173 34 94
Robeson CC 2,213 49 94
Wilkes CC 2,270 12 100
Lenoir CC 2,274 29 100
Western Piedmont CC 2,290 14 100
Davidson County CC 2,444 37 100
Johnston CC 2,636 25 92
Alamance CC 2,690
Surry CC 2,694 39 97
Caldwell CC & TI 2,720 33 97
Sandhills CC 2,770 29 97
Vance- Granville CC 2,870 35 97
Wayne CC 2,938 26 92
3,000 - 4,999
Catawba Valley CC 3,115 30 93
Rowan Cabarrus CC 3,211 47 94
Gaston College 3,323 71 90
Durham TCC 3,439
Asheville- Buncombe TCC 3,669 71 100
Coastal Carolina CC 3,682 46 100
Central Carolina CC 3,803 46 98
Pitt CC 3,905 72 97
Cape Fear CC 3,914 89 97
Forsyth TCC 4,217 21 100
> 4,999
Guilford TCC 5,997 30 100
Wake TCC 6,848 54 94
Fayetteville TCC 8,314 85 92
Central Piedmont CC 9,743 34 91
System Total 143,338 1,546 95
28
PASSING RATES ON LICENSING AND CERTIFICATION EXAMINATIONS, 1997- 98
-- COSMETIC ARTS--
FIRST- TIME TEST TAKERS
APPRENTICE COSMETOLOGY COS. TEACHER MANICURIST
INSTITUTION FTE # TESTED % PASSED # TESTED % PASSED # TESTED % PASSED # TESTED % PASSED
< 1,000
Pamlico CC 201
Montgomery CC 692
Bladen CC 779 * 100 * 100 * 100
Roanoke- Chowan CC 866 8 63
Mayland CC 879 9 89 6 50 5 80
Tri- County CC 893 * 100 12 92 * 75
Martin CC 919 5 100 13 69
Brunswick CC 971 15 93 14 71 18 89
1,000 - 1,999
James Sprunt CC 1,086 16 94 14 79 * 100 21 81
Anson CC 1,135 5 100
McDowell TCC 1,268 11 100 11 91 * 0 8 88
Sampson CC 1,352 * 100 13 92 5 100
Carteret CC 1,392 5 80 12 100
Piedmont CC 1,398 5 100 6 83
Isothermal CC 1,530 16 88 12 50 16 75
Mitchell CC 1,535 7 71
Halifax CC 1,548
Haywood CC 1,601 17 76 * 100 15 100
Blue Ridge CC 1,607 * 75 10 90 13 77
Beaufort County CC 1,638 * 100 13 85 * 100
Randolph CC 1,664
Richmond CC 1,664
Wilson TCC 1,667
Stanly CC 1,694 * 100 6 100 * 100 13 92
Rockingham CC 1,810 23 91 * 0
Nash CC 1,831 * 50 7 71 17 76
Edgecombe CC 1,848 24 71 12 67 * 25
Cleveland CC 1,852
Southwestern CC 1,894 * 100 14 93 * 0 * 100
College of the Albemarle 1,932 15 100 * 100 18 83
2,000 - 2,999
Southeastern CC 2,030 8 50 15 67 8 100
Craven CC 2,173 * 75 37 87 31 97
Robeson CC 2,213 6 100 49 59 18 72
Wilkes CC 2,270
Lenoir CC 2,274 16 62 22 45 25 100
Western Piedmont CC 2,290
Davidson County CC 2,444 10 100 42 83 * 100
Johnston CC 2,636 36 92 * 50 20 95
Alamance CC 2,690 15 87 12 50
Surry CC 2,694 20 95 8 88
Caldwell CC & TI 2,720 12 92 16 69 30 90
Sandhills CC 2,770 7 86 29 79 * 100
Vance- Granville CC 2,870 32 69 57 51 18 67
Wayne CC 2,938 32 75
3,000 - 4,999
Catawba Valley CC 3,115
Rowan Cabarrus CC 3,211 10 90 18 78 6 100
Gaston College 3,323
Durham TCC 3,439
Asheville- Buncombe TCC 3,669
Coastal Carolina CC 3,682 28 89
Central Carolina CC 3,803 20 85 38 82 * 100 32 91
Pitt CC 3,905
Cape Fear CC 3,914
Forsyth TCC 4,217
> 4,999
Guilford TCC 5,997 15 87 18 94 11 91
Wake TCC 6,848
Fayetteville TCC 8,314
Central Piedmont CC 9,743
System Total 143,338 348 86 644 75 9 67 391 88
* Number of test takers too small to report without violating students' privacy. 29
PASSING RATES ON LICENSING AND CERTIFICATION EXAMINATIONS, 1997- 98
DENTAL ASSISTING-- DENTAL HYGIENE-- PHYSICAL THERAPIST ASSISTANT
FIRST- TIME TEST TAKERS
DENTAL ASSISTING DENTAL HYGIENE PHY. THERAPIST ASST.
INSTITUTION FTE # TESTED % PASSED # TESTED % PASSED # TESTED % PASSED
< 1,000
Pamlico CC 201
Montgomery CC 692
Bladen CC 779
Roanoke- Chowan CC 866
Mayland CC 879
Tri- County CC 893
Martin CC 919 32 72
Brunswick CC 971
1,000 - 1,999
James Sprunt CC 1,086
Anson CC 1,135
McDowell TCC 1,268
Sampson CC 1,352
Carteret CC 1,392
Piedmont CC 1,398
Isothermal CC 1,530
Mitchell CC 1,535
Halifax CC 1,548
Haywood CC 1,601
Blue Ridge CC 1,607
Beaufort County CC 1,638
Randolph CC 1,664
Richmond CC 1,664
Wilson TCC 1,667
Stanly CC 1,694 16 75
Rockingham CC 1,810
Nash CC 1,831 14 36
Edgecombe CC 1,848
Cleveland CC 1,852
Southwestern CC 1,894 15 93
College of the Albemarle 1,932
2,000 - 2,999
Southeastern CC 2,030
Craven CC 2,173
Robeson CC 2,213
Wilkes CC 2,270 12 100
Lenoir CC 2,274
Western Piedmont CC 2,290
Davidson County CC 2,444
Johnston CC 2,636
Alamance CC 2,690
Surry CC 2,694
Caldwell CC & TI 2,720 23 65
Sandhills CC 2,770
Vance- Granville CC 2,870
Wayne CC 2,938 13 85 21 95
3,000 - 4,999
Catawba Valley CC 3,115
Rowan Cabarrus CC 3,211 14 100
Gaston College 3,323
Durham TCC 3,439
Asheville- Buncombe TCC 3,669 * 100 16 100
Coastal Carolina CC 3,682 20 100 20 100
Central Carolina CC 3,803
Pitt CC 3,905
Cape Fear CC 3,914 5 100
Forsyth TCC 4,217
> 4,999
Guilford TCC 5,997 * 100 25 100
Wake TCC 6,848 * 100
Fayetteville TCC 8,314 7 100 20 85 16 81
Central Piedmont CC 9,743 16 88 26 73
System Total 143,338 77 97 118 95 142 71
* Number of test takers too small to report without violating students' privacy. 30
PASSING RATES ON LICENSING AND CERTIFICATION EXAMINATIONS, 1998
-- EMERGENCY MEDICAL TECHNICIAN ( EMT)--
FIRST- TIME TEST TAKERS
EMT EMT- D EMT- I EMT- P EMD
INSTITUTION FTE # TESTED % PASSED # TESTED % PASSED # TESTED % PASSED # TESTED % PASSED # TESTED % PASSED
< 1,000
Pamlico CC 201 * 100
Montgomery CC 692 9 78 5 60 7 86
Bladen CC 779 25 32 5 80
Roanoke- Chowan CC 866 7 43 * 100
Mayland CC 879 10 70 * 0 13 92
Tri- County CC 893 67 57 14 64 26 81 13 92
Martin CC 919 31 52 17 88 22 59
Brunswick CC 971 51 37 24 79 * 50
1,000 - 1,999
James Sprunt CC 1,086 26 54 18 61
Anson CC 1,135 12 58 5 100
McDowell TCC 1,268 19 63 6 100
Sampson CC 1,352 20 65 18 89
Carteret CC 1,392 51 73 6 67 10 70
Piedmont CC 1,398 19 37
Isothermal CC 1,530 49 63 21 62 8 50 8 100
Mitchell CC 1,535 34 56 14 79 7 43
Halifax CC 1,548 19 37 15 53 7 71
Haywood CC 1,601 35 69 8 88 23 78 15 100
Blue Ridge CC 1,607 37 65 9 89 * 100 19 100
Beaufort County CC 1,638 73 45 21 48 12 83
Randolph CC 1,664 62 48 15 67 16 88 15 67
Richmond CC 1,664 30 30 7 71 12 67
Wilson TCC 1,667 38 60 8 75 * 100
Stanly CC 1,694 30 73 14 71 13 69
Rockingham CC 1,810 21 43 38 50 7 71 19 84
Nash CC 1,831 22 55 25 84 22 77 5 100
Edgecombe CC 1,848 8 38 5 100
Cleveland CC 1,852 27 44 13 8
Southwestern CC 1,894 22 73 * 33
College of the Albemarle 1,932 58 47 12 92
2,000 - 2,999
Southeastern CC 2,030 21 38 17 77 18 83
Craven CC 2,173 43 54 12 83 18 83 20 100
Robeson CC 2,213 47 87 39 87 11 91 19 100
Wilkes CC 2,270 18 67 9 89 * 50 23 78
Lenoir CC 2,274 61 56 11 91 22 64 16 100
Western Piedmont CC 2,290 28 21 27 93
Davidson County CC 2,444 33 82 * 100 37 87
Johnston CC 2,636 53 47 30 77 * 0
Alamance CC 2,690 30 53 9 100 * 100 9 100
Surry CC 2,694 41 63 19 84 8 100
Caldwell CC & TI 2,720 52 65 11 91 23 83
Sandhills CC 2,770 26 73 7 71
Vance- Granville CC 2,870 65 65 10 60 * 100 10 90
Wayne CC 2,938 48 31 10 80 7 100
3,000 - 4,999
Catawba Valley CC 3,115 35 63 22 82 8 88
Rowan Cabarrus CC 3,211 112 72 48 92 21 67 32 91
Gaston College 3,323 73 45 17 65 6 100 20 80
Durham TCC 3,439 144 85
Asheville- Buncombe TCC 3,669 97 62 25 88 13 77 6 100 7 100
Coastal Carolina CC 3,682 66 73 14 86 8 88
Central Carolina CC 3,803 56 63 45 60 6 83 19 95
Pitt CC 3,905 93 59 6 83
Cape Fear CC 3,914 51 73 * 75 7 86 15 100
Forsyth TCC 4,217 111 70 30 90
> 4,999
Guilford TCC 5,997 132 59 268 88 9 89 8 100
Wake TCC 6,848 153 69 16 88 42 83 16 75
Fayetteville TCC 8,314 100 65 227 88 8 100 17 94
Central Piedmont CC 9,743 116 87 136 99 15 100
Union Technical 17 77 13 85 11 100
System Total 143,338 2,834 62 1,240 83 548 77 457 90 39 95
* Number of test takers too small to report without violating students' privacy. 31
PASSING RATES ON LICENSING AND CERTIFICATION EXAMINATIONS, 1998
-- INSURANCE--
FIRST- TIME TEST TAKERS
LIFE & HEALTH PROPERTY & LIABILITY MEDICARE SUPP/ LTC
INSTITUTION FTE # TESTED % PASSED # TESTED % PASSED # TESTED % PASSED
< 1,000
Pamlico CC 201
Montgomery CC 692
Bladen CC 779
Roanoke- Chowan CC 866
Mayland CC 879
Tri- County CC 893
Martin CC 919 8 63 * 100
Brunswick CC 971
1,000 - 1,999
James Sprunt CC 1,086
Anson CC 1,135
McDowell TCC 1,268
Sampson CC 1,352
Carteret CC 1,392 * 50 10 50
Piedmont CC 1,398
Isothermal CC 1,530 * 100 * 0
Mitchell CC 1,535 9 78 * 0 * 100
Halifax CC 1,548
Haywood CC 1,601
Blue Ridge CC 1,607
Beaufort County CC 1,638
Randolph CC 1,664 * 100 8 38
Richmond CC 1,664
Wilson TCC 1,667 11 64 * 50 * 50
Stanly CC 1,694 5 80
Rockingham CC 1,810
Nash CC 1,831 17 65 20 25
Edgecombe CC 1,848
Cleveland CC 1,852
Southwestern CC 1,894
College of the Albemarle 1,932 15 47
2,000 - 2,999
Southeastern CC 2,030 * 100 * 0
Craven CC 2,173
Robeson CC 2,213 * 100
Wilkes CC 2,270 5 100 * 100
Lenoir CC 2,274 31 71 40 65 22 82
Western Piedmont CC 2,290
Davidson County CC 2,444
Johnston CC 2,636 * 33
Alamance CC 2,690 6 67 11 73
Surry CC 2,694 * 33
Caldwell CC & TI 2,720
Sandhills CC 2,770
Vance- Granville CC 2,870
Wayne CC 2,938 9 78 6 67
3,000 - 4,999
Catawba Valley CC 3,115 25 64 26 62
Rowan Cabarrus CC 3,211
Gaston College 3,323
Durham TCC 3,439
Asheville- Buncombe TCC 3,669 61 66 52 79
Coastal Carolina CC 3,682 * 33 9 78
Central Carolina CC 3,803
Pitt CC 3,905 5 100 12 42
Cape Fear CC 3,914
Forsyth TCC 4,217 17 82 6 50 12 58
> 4,999
Guilford TCC 5,997 20 75 13 85 8 38
Wake TCC 6,848
Fayetteville TCC 8,314 15 93 23 87 5 80
Central Piedmont CC 9,743 107 68 71 58 16 69
System Total 143,338 362 71 286 58 122 74
* Number of test takers too small to report without violating students' privacy. 32
PASSING RATES ON LICENSING AND CERTIFICATION EXAMINATIONS, 1997- 98
-- MEDICAL SONOGRAPHY--
FIRST- TIME TEST TAKERS
PHYSICS ABDOMEN OB- GYN
INSTITUTION FTE # TESTED % PASSED # TESTED % PASSED # TESTED % PASSED
< 1,000
Pamlico CC 201
Montgomery CC 692
Bladen CC 779
Roanoke- Chowan CC 866
Mayland CC 879
Tri- County CC 893
Martin CC 919
Brunswick CC 971
1,000 - 1,999
James Sprunt CC 1,086
Anson CC 1,135
McDowell TCC 1,268
Sampson CC 1,352
Carteret CC 1,392
Piedmont CC 1,398
Isothermal CC 1,530
Mitchell CC 1,535
Halifax CC 1,548
Haywood CC 1,601
Blue Ridge CC 1,607
Beaufort County CC 1,638
Randolph CC 1,664
Richmond CC 1,664
Wilson TCC 1,667
Stanly CC 1,694
Rockingham CC 1,810
Nash CC 1,831
Edgecombe CC 1,848
Cleveland CC 1,852
Southwestern CC 1,894
College of the Albemarle 1,932
2,000 - 2,999
Southeastern CC 2,030
Craven CC 2,173
Robeson CC 2,213
Wilkes CC 2,270
Lenoir CC 2,274
Western Piedmont CC 2,290
Davidson County CC 2,444
Johnston CC 2,636
Alamance CC 2,690
Surry CC 2,694
Caldwell CC & TI 2,720 7 100 * 50 7 71
Sandhills CC 2,770
Vance- Granville CC 2,870
Wayne CC 2,938
3,000 - 4,999
Catawba Valley CC 3,115
Rowan Cabarrus CC 3,211
Gaston College 3,323
Durham TCC 3,439
Asheville- Buncombe TCC 3,669
Coastal Carolina CC 3,682
Central Carolina CC 3,803
Pitt CC 3,905
Cape Fear CC 3,914
Forsyth TCC 4,217 5 20 7 86 * 33
> 4,999
Guilford TCC 5,997
Wake TCC 6,848
Fayetteville TCC 8,314
Central Piedmont CC 9,743
System Total 143,338 12 62 9 78 10 60
* Number of test takers too small to report without violating students' privacy. 33
PASSING RATES ON LICENSING AND CERTIFICATION EXAMINATIONS, 1998
-- NURSING--
FIRST- TIME TEST TAKERS
PRACTICAL NURSING REGISTERED NURSING
INSTITUTION FTE # TESTED % PASSED # TESTED % PASSED
< 1,000
Pamlico CC 201
Montgomery CC 692 22 82
Bladen CC 779 18 100
Roanoke- Chowan CC 866 9 100 14 86
Mayland CC 879 13 92 24 75
Tri- County CC 893 12 100 9 78
Martin CC 919
Brunswick CC 971 21 71
1,000 - 1,999
James Sprunt CC 1,086 18 78 23 74
Anson CC 1,135 11 91
McDowell TCC 1,268 15 87
Sampson CC 1,352 12 92 29 97
Carteret CC 1,392 19 100
Piedmont CC 1,398 10 100 16 63
Isothermal CC 1,530 25 76
Mitchell CC 1,535 36 75
Halifax CC 1,548
Haywood CC 1,601 11 100 14 64
Blue Ridge CC 1,607 20 100
Beaufort County CC 1,638 15 100 19 95
Randolph CC 1,664 24 75
Richmond CC 1,664 31 100
Wilson TCC 1,667
Stanly CC 1,694 11 100 31 94
Rockingham CC 1,810 19 84 24 96
Nash CC 1,831
Edgecombe CC 1,848
Cleveland CC 1,852 13 100
Southwestern CC 1,894 12 92
College of the Albemarle 1,932 15 93 30 77
2,000 - 2,999
Southeastern CC 2,030 18 100 44 91
Craven CC 2,173 13 54 32 94
Robeson CC 2,213 22 100 33 94
Wilkes CC 2,270 27 81
Lenoir CC 2,274 11 100 22 91
Western Piedmont CC 2,290 42 88
Davidson County CC 2,444 32 97
Johnston CC 2,636 14 100 22 100
Alamance CC 2,690 21 100 32 78
Surry CC 2,694 23 96 44 93
Caldwell CC & TI 2,720 31 100 31 87
Sandhills CC 2,770 11 100 48 88
Vance- Granville CC 2,870 31 81
Wayne CC 2,938 10 80 32 97
3,000 - 4,999
Catawba Valley CC 3,115 33 85
Rowan Cabarrus CC 3,211 * 100 39 97
Gaston College 3,323 23 100 28 96
Durham TCC 3,439 25 96 37 70
Asheville- Buncombe TCC 3,669 26 100 61 84
Coastal Carolina CC 3,682 16 81 24 96
Central Carolina CC 3,803 49 92 43 74
Pitt CC 3,905 29 100 46 96
Cape Fear CC 3,914 13 77 24 96
Forsyth TCC 4,217 27 93 93 87
> 4,999
Guilford TCC 5,997 27 96 51 92
Wake TCC 6,848 66 97
Fayetteville TCC 8,314 16 88 66 94
Central Piedmont CC 9,743 49 82
Foothills NRSG CONS. 38 82
NEWH NSG Consortium 73 100 98 73
System Total 143,338 788 93 1,624 87
* Number of test takers too small to report without violating students' privacy. 34
PASSING RATES ON LICENSING AND CERTIFICATION EXAMINATIONS, 1997- 98
OPTICIANRY-- VETERINARY MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY
FIRST- TIME TEST TAKERS
OPTICIANRY VET. MED. TECH.
INSTITUTION FTE # TESTED % PASSED # TESTED % PASSED
< 1,000
Pamlico CC 201
Montgomery CC 692
Bladen CC 779
Roanoke- Chowan CC 866
Mayland CC 879
Tri- County CC 893
Martin CC 919
Brunswick CC 971
1,000 - 2,000
James Sprunt CC 1,086
Anson CC 1,135
McDowell TCC 1,268
Sampson CC 1,352
Carteret CC 1,392
Piedmont CC 1,398
Isothermal CC 1,530
Mitchell CC 1,535
Halifax CC 1,548
Haywood CC 1,601
Blue Ridge CC 1,607
Beaufort County CC 1,638
Randolph CC 1,664
Richmond CC 1,664
Wilson TCC 1,667
Stanly CC 1,694
Rockingham CC 1,810
Nash CC 1,831
Edgecombe CC 1,848
Cleveland CC 1,852
Southwestern CC 1,894
College of the Albemarle 1,932
2,000 - 2,999
Southeastern CC 2,030
Craven CC 2,173
Robeson CC 2,213
Wilkes CC 2,270
Lenoir CC 2,274
Western Piedmont CC 2,290
Davidson County CC 2,444
Johnston CC 2,636
Alamance CC 2,690
Surry CC 2,694
Caldwell CC & TI 2,720
Sandhills CC 2,770
Vance- Granville CC 2,870
Wayne CC 2,938
3,000 - 4,999
Catawba Valley CC 3,115
Rowan Cabarrus CC 3,211
Gaston College 3,323 20 100
Durham TCC 3,439 12 58
Asheville- Buncombe TCC 3,669
Coastal Carolina CC 3,682
Central Carolina CC 3,803 27 93
Pitt CC 3,905
Cape Fear CC 3,914
Forsyth TCC 4,217
> 4,999
Guilford TCC 5,997
Wake TCC 6,848
Fayetteville TCC 8,314
Central Piedmont CC 9,743
System Total 143,338 12 58 47 96
35
PASSING RATES ON LICENSING AND CERTIFICATION EXAMINATIONS, 1997- 98
RADIOGRAPHY-- NUCLEAR MEDICINE TECHNOLOGY--
RADIATION THERAPY TECHNOLOGY
FIRST- TIME TEST TAKERS
RADIOGRAPHY NUC. MED. TECH. RAD. THER. TECH.
INSTITUTION FTE # TESTED % PASSED # TESTED % PASSED # TESTED % PASSED
< 1,000
Pamlico CC 201
Montgomery CC 692
Bladen CC 779
Roanoke- Chowan CC 866
Mayland CC 879
Tri- County CC 893
Martin CC 919
Brunswick CC 971
1,000 - 1,999
James Sprunt CC 1,086
Anson CC 1,135
McDowell TCC 1,268
Sampson CC 1,352
Carteret CC 1,392 8 87
Piedmont CC 1,398
Isothermal CC 1,530
Mitchell CC 1,535
Halifax CC 1,548
Haywood CC 1,601
Blue Ridge CC 1,607
Beaufort County CC 1,638
Randolph CC 1,664
Richmond CC 1,664
Wilson TCC 1,667
Stanly CC 1,694
Rockingham CC 1,810
Nash CC 1,831
Edgecombe CC 1,848 14 92
Cleveland CC 1,852 * 100
Southwestern CC 1,894 17 88
College of the Albemarle 1,932
2,000 - 2,999
Southeastern CC 2,030
Craven CC 2,173
Robeson CC 2,213
Wilkes CC 2,270
Lenoir CC 2,274
Western Piedmont CC 2,290
Davidson County CC 2,444
Johnston CC 2,636 17 100
Alamance CC 2,690
Surry CC 2,694
Caldwell CC & TI 2,720 14 100 6 100
Sandhills CC 2,770 7 85
Vance- Granville CC 2,870 18 100
Wayne CC 2,938
3,000 - 4,999
Catawba Valley CC 3,115
Rowan Cabarrus CC 3,211 17 76
Gaston College 3,323
Durham TCC 3,439
Asheville- Buncombe TCC 3,669 13 92
Coastal Carolina CC 3,682
Central Carolina CC 3,803
Pitt CC 3,905 19 100 * 100 5 80
Cape Fear CC 3,914 * 100
Forsyth TCC 4,217 19 73 * 100 5 100
> 4,999
Guilford TCC 5,997
Wake TCC 6,848 11 100
Fayetteville TCC 8,314 10 100
Central Piedmont CC 9,743
System Total 143,338 191 92 12 100 10 90
* Number of test takers too small to report without violating students' privacy. 36
PASSING RATES ON LICENSING AND CERTIFICATION EXAMINATIONS, 1997- 98
-- REAL ESTATE--
FIRST- TIME TEST TAKERS
SALES BROKER
INSTITUTION FTE # TESTED % PASSED # TESTED % PASSED
< 1,000
Pamlico CC 201
Montgomery CC 692
Bladen CC 779 * 0
Roanoke- Chowan CC 866 6 83
Mayland CC 879 19 58 * 50
Tri- County CC 893 21 48 * 75
Martin CC 919 * 100
Brunswick CC 971 44 66 18 78
1,000 - 1,999
James Sprunt CC 1,086
Anson CC 1,135 * 50
McDowell TCC 1,268 8 100
Sampson CC 1,352
Carteret CC 1,392 42 69
Piedmont CC 1,398 * 25
Isothermal CC 1,530 9 44 16 38
Mitchell CC 1,535 39 49
Halifax CC 1,548 18 50
Haywood CC 1,601 6 50
Blue Ridge CC 1,607 17 71 10 100
Beaufort County CC 1,638 * 100
Randolph CC 1,664 21 71
Richmond CC 1,664
Wilson TCC 1,667 8 38
Stanly CC 1,694 21 43
Rockingham CC 1,810 * 33 * 33
Nash CC 1,831 24 63
Edgecombe CC 1,848
Cleveland CC 1,852 9 44
Southwestern CC 1,894 43 70 * 0
College of the Albemarle 1,932 17 47 * 100
2,000 - 2,999
Southeastern CC 2,030 7 43
Craven CC 2,173 * 50 * 0
Robeson CC 2,213 5 80
Wilkes CC 2,270 10 70
Lenoir CC 2,274 9 78
Western Piedmont CC 2,290 13 54 6 33
Davidson County CC 2,444 39 62 * 0
Johnston CC 2,636 27 70
Alamance CC 2,690 51 86 77 75
Surry CC 2,694 23 70 26 69
Caldwell CC & TI 2,720 21 48 * 50
Sandhills CC 2,770 18 50 11 45
Vance- Granville CC 2,870 11 91
Wayne CC 2,938 * 100
3,000 - 4,999
Catawba Valley CC 3,115 28 61 * 100
Rowan Cabarrus CC 3,211 55 82 * 0
Gaston College 3,323 75 52
Durham TCC 3,439 58 74 14 57
Asheville- Buncombe TCC 3,669 22 55 10 50
Coastal Carolina CC 3,682 48 44
Central Carolina CC 3,803 27 56 * 0
Pitt CC 3,905 21 52 13 92
Cape Fear CC 3,914 10 100
Forsyth TCC 4,217 31 71 8 63
> 4,999
Guilford TCC 5,997 70 59 29 83
Wake TCC 6,848 48 77 14 64
Fayetteville TCC 8,314 41 73
Central Piedmont CC 9,743 263 59 25 72
System Total 143,338 1,422 62 303 67
* Number of test takers too small to report without violating students' privacy. 37
38
PROFESSIONAL BOARD CONTACTS FOR CSF MEASURE
I. E. LICENSURE PASSING RATES
EXAM AGENCY CONTACT
Basic Law Enforcement NC Dept. of Justice Ray Hamilton
919/ 716- 6475
Cosmetology NC State Board of Cosmetology Carolyn Murray
919/ 733- 4120
Dental Assisting Dental Assisting National Board Inc. Dawn Meyer
312/ 642- 3368
Dental Hygiene NC State Board of Dental Examiners Jennifer Daniels
919/ 781- 4901
Emergency Medical Technician NC Dept. of Human Resources
919/ 733- 2285
Ray Smith
Insurance NC Dept. of Insurance Louis Johnson
919/ 733- 7487
Nursing NC Board of Nursing Teresa Williamson
919/ 782- 3211
Opticianry NC State Board of Opticians Carolyn Allen
919/ 733- 9321
Physical Therapy NC Board of Physical Therapy Ben Massey
919/ 490- 6393
Radiologic Technology The American Registry of Radiologic
Technologists
612/ 687- 0048
Dan Anderson
Real Estate NC Real Estate Commission Larry Outlaw
919/ 875- 3700
Veterinary NC Veterinary Medical Board Tom Mickey
919/ 733- 7689
39
STUDENT SUCCESS MEASURE F: Program Completion Rates
Background
Students attend community colleges for a wide variety of reasons. Unlike traditional
university students, a large number of students enrolled in community colleges are not
pursuing a degree. Some students are pursuing basic skills, others are in search of job
preparation skills or job retraining, and still others are preparing for transfer to a four- year
institution. These students attend community colleges to obtain specific skills or knowledge
that will enable them to attain their goal, which may be employment, transferring to a four-year
institution, or simply self- improvement.
Depending on the reason for attending, students may enroll in a community college for one
quarter or they may be in pursuit of a certificate, diploma, or degree. Further, many students
who enroll in community colleges do so on a part- time basis. These students, due to
employment constraints or family responsibilities, simply cannot attend college on a full- time
basis or even necessarily attend each quarter. As a result, calculation of program completion
rates and the assessment of the appropriateness of a program completion rate are difficult.
The calculation of an accurate program completion rate must account for student intention.
Therefore, since many students enroll in a community college without the intention of
completing a program, any calculation of a program completion rate must eliminate these
students. To be accurate, a program completion rate must be based solely on those students
who enroll in a community college with the intent of earning a certificate, diploma, or degree.
As of 1991- 92, student intent was added to the Curriculum Student Progress Information
System. Information is now being gathered at all colleges on students' intentions for enrolling.
Among the reasons for enrolling that students can select is the intent of obtaining a certificate,
degree, or diploma. With the implementation of the new Accountability Performance
Measures and Standards, goal completion of program completers will be reported in the 2000
CSF report. In addition, implementation of the federal Right- to- Know legislation has
mandated tracking cohorts for 150 percent of the time needed to complete a program.
Recommendation
The State Board of Community Colleges has adopted an Annual Program Audit for all
colleges to use in reviewing all programs and services annually. In addition, the State Board
has adopted performance standards for certain key measures in the Annual Program Audit.
Among the measures for which standards have been adopted is student goal accomplishment,
which includes completion rates, as well as other goal attainment by students. This measure
40
will more accurately reflect the success of students in programs in community colleges than
will looking just at graduation rates. Therefore, it is recommended that this measure be
modified in the future to examine both graduation rates and student goal accomplishment.
In addition, efforts should be made to identify the core courses in a program that enable a
student to leave the program possessing marketable skills even though the program was not
completed. With this information, a modified program completion rate could be developed
that would reflect students gaining marketable skills.
41
STUDENT SUCCESS MEASURE G: Passing Rates for Remedial Courses
Background
Students who enroll in community colleges are often unprepared for college level coursework.
Unlike the traditional university, community colleges maintain an " open door" philosophy and,
as a result, serve non- traditional students and students who may not have been properly
prepared for post- secondary education. For many of these students, the colleges must first
equip them with the basic skills and knowledge necessary to pursue college level courses.
Colleges have developed remedial courses for students who have deficiencies in core course
areas. The purpose of the remedial courses is to equip students with the skills and knowledge
necessary for success in their college studies. Once students have successfully completed the
remedial courses, they can then move into a regular college program.
The passing rate for remedial courses is one measure of student success. This measure
provides an indication of the success of colleges in alleviating student deficiencies and
preparing students for college level work. In other words, it is a measure of the success of the
colleges in providing students with the basic skills necessary for post- secondary education.
Because of inconsistent grading policies, it was impossible to compute passing rates for
remedial courses. A task force is developing a plan for collecting and analyzing the data to
ensure consistency in reporting. A computer program has been developed and is being
implemented at the colleges that will identify remedial courses, identify students who are
enrolled in these courses, and calculate passing rates for these courses. Data on this measure
should be available in the future.
Recommendation
The data on passing rates for remedial courses should be gathered and analyzed. In addition,
efforts should be undertaken to develop a measure of the success of students who pass
remedial courses in future college courses.
42
STUDENT SUCCESS MEASURE H: Passing Rates for " General Education"
and " Related" Courses
Background
Student success measures often focus on " end point" measures such as program completion
rates, licensure passing rates, and degrees awarded. While these are appropriate measures of
student success, they overlook the success of students while they are progressing through a
program of study. In addition, these measures often fail to capture students who enroll in a
community college and do not have the intent of completing a program.
Passing rates for " General Education" and " related" courses provide a measure of the success
of students in progressing through a course of study. These courses are designed to provide
students with traditional academic studies ( e. g., English, mathematics, social sciences) and
complement the technical and vocational components of their programs. " General Education"
and " related" courses can be thought of as that component of a student's program that
provides a " well- rounded" education.
Currently it is not possible to compute passing rates for " General Education" and " related"
courses. As with Student Success Measure G, passing rates for remedial courses, the
appropriate computer programs have been developed and are being implemented that will
result in the calculation of passing rates for " General Education" and " related" courses. These
rates should be available in the future.
Recommendation
The Common Course Library has been established and programs should be developed to track
student performance.
43
CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTOR II: RESOURCES
For any institution, educational or industrial, there is a critical mass of resources necessary for the
organization to perform at an optimal level. When resources fall below this critical mass level,
performance declines and quality suffers. The level of resources can be thought of as an indicator
of the health of an organization.
During the 1960s, resources for higher education were readily available. During the past two
decades, however, colleges and universities have had to contend with a shrinking availability of
resources. The demand by the public for tax relief and reduced state government over the past
few years, coupled with some revenue shortfalls, has resulted in ever tightening budgets.
While resources have declined over the past two decades, the demands on community colleges
have increased dramatically. Enrollment has continued to increase, with more and more North
Carolinians turning to the community colleges for job training and for the first two years of a
baccalaureate program. The role of community colleges in basic skills education and community
services has grown continuously over the years. Colleges are being asked to provide more
services to more people with fewer resources.
An examination of the colleges' resources will indicate the capability of the institutions in
providing quality educational programs. Whereas resources alone do not guarantee that a quality
education will be present, without the appropriate resources, a college cannot provide students
with an adequate learning experience.
The measures selected as indicators of the health of the System and the colleges as determined by
resources are:
A. Average Salaries as a Percent of the Southeastern Regional Average
B. Student/ Faculty Ratio
C. Participation in Staff Development Programs: Tier A
D. Currentness of Equipment
E. Percent of Libraries Meeting American Library Association Standards
F. System Funding/ FTE
44
RESOURCES MEASURE A: Institutional Salaries as a Percent of the Southeastern
Regional Average
Background
This measure is an indicator of a key " input" to education: the personnel who make it happen.
While it is true that dedicated people will provide high quality education for low salaries, it is
unrealistic to expect that education can continue to attract highly skilled, knowledgeable people
who have significantly higher paying alternatives. If these alternatives are in other educational
systems C if a dedicated teacher can teach elsewhere for more pay C it is even more unrealistic. In
addition, community colleges must compete for technically skilled people in areas like electronics
and nursing, in which the relevant labor market is outside education. Measures for market
competitiveness of salaries should be developed.
The 1997- 98 national salary data on administrative positions are from the College and University
Personnel Association ( CUPA). The data are based on two- year institutions from across the
nation. The median salary for each position is reported.
The 1999- 2001 Strategic Plan recommended that the North Carolina Community College System
raise salaries from 83.3 percent of the Southern Regional Education Board ( SREB) average to the
SREB average. Faculty salaries in the southeastern region have been chosen as a conservative
basis for comparison since these states are similar to North Carolina in terms of cost of living.
Other things to consider include the fact that technical education is a greater part of what
community colleges do in North Carolina than elsewhere, even in the South, and that technical
personnel are typically more expensive.
Furthermore, salaries are not measured or reported consistently between states and the data are
confusing. The average monthly salary, including fringes, is considered to be the most
comparable figure, since colleges and systems define full- time in various ways. The salary
question also involves issues related to longevity. A long- time faculty member may have a higher
salary due to seniority; or conversely, it may have been necessary to pay more to get the newest
person in a competitive labor market.
Because of different contract lengths for faculty within the System and across states, the data are
converted to a 9- month equivalent salary. This procedure allows for a more accurate comparison
of North Carolina salaries with salaries from other states. Thus, the data presented in this
measure are the average 9- month faculty salary for full- time curriculum faculty. However, it
should be noted that 70 percent of full- time curriculum faculty work 12 months, and only 21
percent of faculty are employed on 9- month contracts.
45
Implications
The data indicate that North Carolina has not improved its ranking in the southeastern region
despite the slight increase in salaries; and, it remains significantly behind the regional average for
faculty salaries. The increase in faculty salaries is worth noting - 6.9 percent. On the other hand,
for the 15- state region, the increase was only 1.4 percent. The impact of low salaries is reflected
in colleges losing key personnel, especially to industry, and in not being able to hire their first
choice in certain fields.
The data on administrative salaries show that the community colleges are behind in most
categories. Besides data on the median administrative salaries for North Carolina compared to
the national medians, information is presented on the percentage of North Carolina administrators
that are above the 60th percentile and those below the 40th percentile for national salaries. These
data indicate that median salaries for administrators in North Carolina, in most categories, is
below the 40th percentile for the nation. As with faculty salaries, North Carolina ranks low in
administrative salaries.
46
NORTH CAROLINA COMMUNITY COLLEGE MEDIAN ADMINISTRATIVE SALARIES
COMPARED WITH NATIONAL MEDIANS
EMPLOYEE CATEGORY CUPA MEDIAN SALARY
1997- 98
NC MEDIAN SALARY
1997- 98
Executive
President $ 103,000 $ 105,702
Executive Vice President 84,975 80,028
Academic
Chief Instructional Officer $ 74,847 $ 67,404
Inst. Research/ Planning 50,088 55,572
Administrator- Vocational 61,116 54,840
Administrator- LRC 50,115 47,364
Institutional Research 46,439 44,376
Administrative
Chief Business Officer $ 72,951 $ 65,082
Admin.- Accounting 52,335 48,186
Supervising- Accounting 44,172 38,286
Mgmt/ Plant Operations 52,036 34,824
Admin.- Computer Center 58,000 52,098
Computer Systems Admin. 48,623 36,858
Personnel Officer 52,372 34,548
Purchasing 41,529 31,092
Printing 33,619 22,200
Accounting- high 33,674 24,900
Comp. Programmer- high 36,889 29,760
External Affairs
Inst. Development Officer $ 50,582 $ 37,404
Public Information 45,839 33,258
Student Services
Chief Student Services Officer $ 65,970 $ 58,662
Admin.- Student Services 63,571 49,368
Financial Aid Officer 45,236 33,636
Registrar/ Admissions 50,698 36,708
Source: CUPA Administrative Compensation Survey, 1997- 98.
Planning and Research, NC Community College System Office.
.
47
MEDIAN SALARIES OF NORTH CAROLINA COMMUNITY COLLEGE ADMINISTRATORS AND
PERCENT BELOW THE NATIONAL FORTIETH PERCENTILE AND PERCENT ABOVE THE
NATIONAL SIXTIETH PERCENTILE IN 1997- 98
North
Carolina
Number
% Below
U. S. 40th
Percentile
% Above
U. S. 60th
Percentile
Position Title
U. S. 40th
Percentile
U. S. 60th
Percentile
58 29% 47% Chief Executive Officer ( President) $ 99,362 $ 107,978
24 46% 13% Executive Vice President $ 79,737 $ 89,139
48 65% 25% Chief Business Officer $ 69,118 $ 75,550
20 50% 15% Administrator- Accounting/ Controller $ 47,250 $ 56,353
44 59% 9% Management/ Supervising- Accounting $ 40,409 $ 46,324
23 13% 57% Mgmt/ Research/ Devel/ Plan/ Effect $ 47,525 $ 55,190
47 70% 6% Chief Instructional Officer 72,016 $ 78,053
7 71% 14% Administrator- Vocational $ 58,557 $ 65,595
33 58% 27% Administrator- Learning Resources $ 48,244 $ 53,948
38 74% 8% Chief Student Affairs/ Services Officer $ 62,913 $ 69,578
42 83% 7% Administrator- Student Services $ 59,750 $ 66,407
65 83% 6% Financial Aid Officer $ 42,253 $ 47,548
50 84% 4% Registrar/ Admissions $ 47,840 $ 53,125
61 92% 2% Management/ Plant Operations $ 47,963 $ 55,663
22 55% 14% Administrator- Computer Center $ 53,194 $ 63,276
66 89% 3% Computer Systems Administrator $ 47,277 $ 53,244
25 76% 12% Institutional Development Officer $ 48,220 $ 54,000
9 22% 33% Institutional Research $ 42,097 $ 49,028
36 83% 3% Public Information $ 42,034 $ 49,047
29 100% 0% Personnel Officer $ 48,747 $ 58,176
29 76% 7% Purchasing $ 36,656 $ 45,268
57 98% 0% Printing $ 32,305 $ 36,252
129 87% 5% Accounting- high $ 32,220 $ 36,722
25 68% 4% Computer Programmer- high $ 34,529 $ 39,050
Source: CUPA Administrative Compensation Survey, 1997- 98.
Planning and Research, NC Community College System Office.
48
NORTH CAROLINA COMMUNITY COLLEGE FACULTY SALARIES AS A PERCENTAGE
OF THE SOUTHEAST AVERAGE AND RANK
AMONG 15 SOUTHEASTERN STATES
YEAR
NC
SALARY**
SREB AVE.
SALARY
% OF SREB
AVE. RANK
1993- 94 $ 27,408 $ 33,470 81.9 15th
1994- 95 $ 29,234 $ 34,433 84.9 15th
1995- 96 $ 30,106* $ 36,146 83.3 15th
1996- 97 $ 30,124 $ 37,163 81.1 15th
1997- 98 $ 32,206 $ 37,677 85.5 15th
* Data published in the 1995- 96 SREB Data Exchange were incorrect. The data have been
corrected.
** Full- time faculty salary was converted to nine- month salary for comparisons.
Source: SREB Fact Book On Higher Education.
Recommendation
Improving salary levels is a major cost item. The work with the SREB and other agencies to try
to establish the monthly salary as the basis for comparison and to develop a consistent approach
to collecting and reporting the data should be continued. An improved data measure using the
CUPA report is currently being investigated and will possibly be implemented in the future.
Additionally, alternative benchmarks should also be investigated particularly in terms of market
competitiveness.
49
RESOURCES MEASURE B: Student/ Faculty Ratio
Background
A key ingredient to a proper learning situation is the opportunity for interaction between
instructor and student. In technical and vocational programs, where much of the teaching is
" hands- on," instructors must be able to give individual attention to students in the classroom and
in the lab/ shop. Unfortunately, as enrollments have increased, many colleges have found that the
only way to meet the demand for programs is by increasing class size.
The student/ faculty ratio is an indicator of the health of the System. As the student/
faculty ratio increases; it is logical to assume that the opportunity for students to receive
individual attention decreases. An increasing student/ faculty ratio also translates into an increased
workload for the faculty for there are more students to teach/ supervise/ advise and more papers to
evaluate. As faculty workload increases, so does faculty " burnout."
An appropriate measure of the student/ faculty ratio is currently being developed. In assessing the
appropriateness of a student/ faculty ratio, individual programs will need to be examined. It is
likely that what may be an appropriate student/ faculty ratio for a college transfer English class
may not be appropriate for a welding class where the instruction is more " hands- on" oriented.
Recommendation
This measure should be developed for reporting in the future. In developing the measure,
consideration should be given to the types of programs offered by the System. In addition,
comparable data from other systems should be collected.
50
RESOURCES MEASURE C: Participation in Staff Development Programs: Tier A
Background
Like salaries, participation in staff development programs is an " input" indicator of the quality of
teaching. Instructors who stay up to date in their field and incorporate new teaching technologies
and methods into their delivery provide better quality instruction. Staff development activities
also boost morale and creativity. Personnel in all classifications realize similar effects.
There is currently no way to measure the level of participation in staff development programs.
The only indicator available is participation in " Tier A" programs, which are funded separately and
have been restricted to certain types of activities. Before 1989- 90 only faculty were eligible for
Tier A program support. Other personnel also need staff development activities. Funding for
Tier A has remained at $ 1.23 million each year over the six years the program has been in effect,
thus not increasing even to cover inflation. In addition, restrictions on the use of these funds were
lifted as part of a flexibility measure to help colleges deal with the budget cuts of the past. Thus,
colleges were able to use the funds to meet any legitimate college need.
During normal operations, colleges spend additional dollars and involve personnel in
developmental activities that are not covered by these funds. For example, travel funds are
typically made available from college operating budgets to enable staff to attend conferences, etc.
Colleges also hold on- campus professional development activities not covered with special funds.
However, only limited funds are available from operating budgets.
An appropriate measure of participation in staff development programs is currently unavailable.
In past years, the number of faculty and staff participating in Tier A sponsored activities has been
reported. These data, however, have been very limited in that the type of activity and the quality
of activity have not been assessed. Simply looking at participation rates did not provide any
information on the activities and impact on college personnel. Indeed, if a college sponsored a
mandatory workshop for all personnel, then the college would have a 100 percent participation
rate, but it is not necessarily true that the college would have met the staff development needs of
its personnel.
Beginning in 1991- 92 it was decided to report on the percentage of Tier A funds that were
expended by the System and by the colleges. The data provide some measure of the college's
efforts in providing faculty and staff with staff development activities.
51
Implications
The data indicate that colleges are making use of Tier A money. It is still not possible, however,
to determine the impact of the Tier A sponsored activities. It is also not possible to determine
from available data the amount of additional funds expended by colleges on staff development
activities. Efforts to define a meaningful staff development participation measure should continue.
Data
PERCENTAGE OF TIER A FUNDS EXPENDED FOR
FULL- AND PART- TIME FACULTY AND STAFF
YEAR % OF FUNDS EXPENDED
1993- 94 94.88
1994- 95 98.00
1995- 96 97.00
1996- 97 96.00
1997- 98 98.00
Source: Professional Competencies Program Final Report,
Academic & Student Services, NC Community College System Office.
Recommendation
Efforts to develop an appropriate measure of participation in staff development activities should
continue. Such a measure should include staff development activities for all staff, not faculty
only, and should provide evidence of the extent of involvement, such as hours or days devoted to
professional development activities.
PERCENTAGE OF TIER A FUNDS EXPENDED
FOR FULL- AND PART- TIME FACULTY AND STAFF, 1997- 98
PERCENT OF FUNDS SPENT
INSTITUTION FTE 1994- 95 1995- 96 1996- 97 1997- 98
< 1,000
Pamlico CC 201 91 100 98 93
Montgomery CC 692 100 100 100 100
Bladen CC 779 100 100 100 100
Roanoke- Chowan CC 866 100 97 100 99
Mayland CC 879 100 100 100 100
Tri- County CC 893 82 100 100 98
Martin CC 919 100 100 97 99
Brunswick CC 971 96 100 100 100
1,000 - 1,999
James Sprunt CC 1,086 92 93 85 100
Anson CC 1,135 100 100 100 71
McDowell TCC 1,268 100 100 99 100
Sampson CC 1,352 100 100 99 99
Carteret CC 1,392 100 98 96 100
Piedmont CC 1,398 97 100 94 100
Isothermal CC 1,530 100 100 100 100
Mitchell CC 1,535 100 100 100 100
Halifax CC 1,548 96 99 86 65
Haywood CC 1,601 97 52 86 98
Blue Ridge CC 1,607 98 99 100 100
Beaufort County CC 1,638 95 100 100 100
Randolph CC 1,664 100 94 99 100
Richmond CC 1,664 98 92 89 62
Wilson CC 1,667 100 100 99 97
Stanly CC 1,694 99 100 67 100
Rockingham CC 1,810 100 93 100 99
Nash CC 1,831 100 99 100 100
Edgecombe CC 1,848 97 100 100 100
Cleveland CC 1,852 94 100 76 100
Southwestern CC 1,894 100 100 100 100
College of the Albemarle 1,932 100 100 99 99
2,000 - 2,999
Southeastern CC 2,030 95 99 88 92
Craven CC 2,173 95 100 99 93
Robeson CC 2,213 100 100 99 99
Wilkes CC 2,270 100 100 99 99
Lenoir CC 2,274 100 100 100 100
Western Piedmont CC 2,290 100 100 74 99
Davidson County CC 2,444 100 100 100 100
Johnston CC 2,636 92 100 98 99
Alamance CC 2,690 91 98 97 99
Surry CC 2,694 100 90 95 99
Caldwell CC & TI 2,720 100 100 100 100
Sandhills CC 2,770 100 100 100 99
Vance- Granville CC 2,870 99 100 100 100
Wayne CC 2,938 97 100 100 100
3,000 - 4,999
Catawba Valley CC 3,115 100 92 96 100
Rowan- Cabarrus CC 3,211 98 100 100 100
Gaston College 3,323 100 95 97 100
Durham TCC 3,439 100 100 100 100
Asheville- Buncombe TCC 3,669 100 100 100 100
Coastal Carolina CC 3,682 100 100 100 100
Central Carolina CC 3,803 100 100 100 99
Pitt CC 3,905 99 100 93 96
Cape Fear CC 3,914 100 100 100 100
Forsyth TCC 4,217 100 100 100 100
> 4,999
Guilford TCC 5,997 100 99 100 100
Wake TCC 6,848 100 99 99 100
Fayetteville TCC 8,314 87 89 91 95
Central Piedmont CC 9,743 100 93 99 99
System 143,338 98 97 96 98
52
53
RESOURCES MEASURE D: Currentness of Equipment
Background
If colleges are to prepare students for the increasingly complex technological demands of the
workplace, equipment that is appropriate to the skills students need to develop must be made
available. It is not possible to adequately prepare workers for 21st century jobs using 20th
century technology. A key component of fostering a " culture of quality" at community college
institutions is the availability of equipment that is appropriate to the skills being taught.
Manufacturing today is very different from a decade ago, involving more automated processes
that are computer driven. Today's worker must be skilled in this new technology if the needs of
business and industry are to be met.
To assess the availability of appropriate equipment in the Community College System, data were
examined on the age of equipment in use in the System. The assumption underlying this analysis
is that the development of skills needed in today's workplace requires experience with and
knowledge of equipment that is current and up to date.
Implications
The 1997- 98 data show that 53 percent of all equipment currently in use in the System is more
than five years old and 27 percent of that equipment is more than ten years old. It can be seen
that some strides have been made over the last two years in replacing obsolete equipment.
However, the fact remains that equipment is still aging at a faster rate than new equipment is
being purchased. Ninety- five percent of the equipment presently in use has a depreciating life of
five to seven years, requiring an ongoing effort to reduce the proportion of the equipment being
used for training in the System that is either obsolete or on the verge of obsolescence.
54
Data
PERCENT OF EQUIPMENT IN EACH AGE CATEGORY
YEAR 0- 5 YEARS 6- 10 YEARS > 10 YEARS
1993- 94 20 33 47
1994- 95 15 32 53
1995- 96 45 29 26
1996- 97 45 27 28
1997- 98 48 26 27
Source: Equipment Database, Facility and Property Services,
NC Community College System Office.
Recommendation
The five- year trend in the aging of equipment in the Community College System shows some
improvement. Over a five- year period, the percentage of equipment that was more than five years
old decreased from a high of 85 percent in 1994- 95 to 53 percent in 1997- 98. With the
technological advances over the past five years, aging equipment should remain a concern of the
Community College System. Further studies need to be conducted to determine the impact that
aging equipment has on the ability of community colleges to appropriately train students for the
workplace.
This measure should continue to be developed and refined. Future development should focus not
just on the age of the equipment, but on the match between the equipment being used in training
and the skills needed by workers in the various occupations.
55
RESOURCES MEASURE E: Percent of Libraries Meeting American Library
Association Standards
Background
Like current equipment, up- to- date libraries or learning resource centers are a key measure of the
health of educational institutions. They provide the resources needed by students of all levels in
the pursuit of education to support their classroom efforts.
The American Library Association ( ALA) has adopted standards for libraries or learning resource
centers at community, junior and technical colleges. Based on an institution's full- time equivalent
( FTE) enrollment, the standards establish " minimum" and " excellent" levels for various areas of
the libraries or learning resource centers ( e. g., staff, collections, budget). In effect, ALA has
established a " yardstick" by which an institution, or a system, can measure the adequacy of its
library resources.
Using the ALA standards, data on the System libraries were collected and analyzed. The purpose
of the analysis was to determine what percentage of the institutions meets the ALA standards at
either the " minimum" or " excellent” level. Only those factors in the standards for which data were
readily available were included in the analysis. Data related to services are not now available and
therefore were not included in this analysis.
Implications
Data on library operating expenditures, serial holdings, book collection size, library staff, and
square footage of facilities were collected on each college. This information was compared with
the " minimum" and " excellent" levels defined by ALA for each measure. It is important to note
that different levels are specified for each measure depending on the size of the college as
measured by FTE. In conducting the analysis, colleges were matched with the levels specified for
their FTE. Though the standards do not differentiate between FTE and curriculum FTE, such a
differentiation was made in this analysis. That is, our colleges were matched with the FTE level
for each measure based on their curriculum FTE, not total FTE. The result of this approach is to
make the most favorable judgment of our library resources, since in fact our libraries or learning
resource centers must also serve the non- curriculum students.
The data indicate that the majority of the System's libraries do not meet the " minimum" levels
specified by ALA, though over the past five years progress has been made. In 1996- 97, 23
colleges met the minimum level and two colleges met the excellent level for number of book titles.
This year’s data show a slight decline with 20 colleges meeting the minimum level and 3 meeting
the excellent level bringing the overall percent of colleges that met the standard from 43 to 38.
56
Data
LEARNING RESOURCE CENTERS: COMPLIANCE WITH ACRL STANDARDS
MEASURE BELOW
STANDARD
MINIMUM
LEVEL
EXCELLENT
LEVEL
# % # % # %
# of Book Titles 35 60 20 35 3 5
Serial Subscriptions 32 55 24 41 2 3
Expenditure per FTE
Minus Salaries 55 95 3 5 0 0
Library Staff 49 84 9 16 0 0
Square Footage 58 100 0 0 0 0
Source: Planning and Research, NC Community College System Office.
Percentage of LRCs Meeting Standard
1993- 94 1994- 95 1995- 96 1996- 97 1997- 98
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Books Serials
1993- 94 1994- 95 1995- 96 1996- 97 1997- 98
Books 29 36 43 43 40
Serials 52 43 52 50 44
Recommendation
In 1992- 93 the General Assembly doubled the appropriations for libraries at community colleges.
This measure should be monitored carefully in the future to determine improvements in the
number of colleges that do meet the ALA standards.
This measure should continue to be refined. Data on the number of services provided by each
college's library or learning resource center should be collected. The appropriateness of the
facilities measure ( square footage of library) should be closely examined to determine its
usefulness in assessing the quality of the System's libraries.
57
RESOURCES MEASURE F: System Funding/ FTE
Background
System funding/ FTE can be thought of as the basis for all other resources available at a
community college. It is the funding that makes possible adequate salaries for faculty, the
purchase of equipment, the enhancement of libraries, and the means by which to offer staff
development activities. Quite naturally, a high level of funding does not ensure that the
appropriate resources will be available at colleges; the funds must be managed properly for this to
occur. However, without an appropriate level of funding, other resources cannot be secured.
This measure was developed to indicate the trend in System funding/ FTE over the past five years
and to compare this trend with national data. As available information was analyzed, however, it
was found that the data were not available in a form that made comparisons possible. For the
System, the most reliable data found were on average cost per FTE. The data provide a measure
of expended allocations for the year as a function of FTE.
On the national level, a consistent, comparative statistic was not available. The National
Association of College and University Business Officers ( NACUBO) does publish information on
state appropriations per credit FTE student, but this information is based on a sample of
community colleges rather than on the System. In addition, NACUBO reports a State Median
statistic and a Mean of Medians statistic on the data. At this point, it is unclear as to the
usefulness and generalizability of these data. Because of the uncertain nature of the national data,
only state data are being reported.
Implications
The average cost per FTE for Curriculum, Basic Skills and Extension is reported separately. This
breakout gives better definition to this measure. The average cost/ FTE increased significantly in
1993- 94. Part of this increase was a result of the state moving the June pay date for state
employees and community college instructors from July 1 back to June 30, thus correcting the
action that had been taken in 1991- 92. This resulted in a 13- month pay period for most state
workers in 1993- 94. Since 1993- 94 there has been a moderate but steady increase across all three
areas.
58
Data
AVERAGE COST PER FTE FOR THE NORTH CAROLINA
COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM
YEAR AVERAGE COST/ FTE
Curriculum Adult Basic Ed. Extension
1993- 94 $ 2,812 $ 3,212 $ 1,953
1994- 95 $ 2,880 $ 3,308 $ 1,964
1995- 96 $ 2,990 $ 3,326 $ 2,090
1996- 97 $ 3,158 $ 3,609 $ 2,173
1997- 98 $ 3,264 $ 3,558 $ 2,807
Source: Annual Financial Report, Auditing and Accounting,
NC Community College System Office.
Recommendation
A measure of System funding/ FTE should be developed. Comparative data on SREB states and
on the national level should be sought.
59
CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTOR III: ACCESS
At the core of the Community College System's mission is its open door policy.
Community colleges in the words of founding father Dallas Herring " take people from
where they are to where they want to be." The special mission of community colleges is
to serve those who did not have opportunities to learn or who missed out on those
opportunities, and to serve people who have special problems to overcome. Thus, there is
an emphasis on reaching out to the underserved: dropouts, handicapped, economically or
educationally disadvantaged and other groups who are not traditionally included in higher
education.
There are many issues facing community colleges today, but perhaps none strike at the
core of our mission as hard as does the reality of limited resources in this time of
economic uncertainty. How long can the " open door" remain open when personnel,
services, and facilities are strained to their limits? As the demands on community colleges
continue to rise without a corresponding increase in resources, the " open door" that is the
path to opportunity for so many closes just a bit more.
The state needs to raise the productivity of its citizens, and these are times in which people
have a harder time being self- sufficient and raising families unless they have an education.
Providing access to education, a constitutional duty of the state in North Carolina, is
increasingly important to individuals and to society. A successful community college
system will reach out to underserved groups.
The measures selected to indicate how well the Community College System is performing
this role are:
A. Enrollment of High School Dropouts; Handicapped; Disadvantaged; Single
Parents; Nontraditional High School Diploma Earners; Inmates
B. Number Served by Type Through Basic Skills Programs and Percent of Target
Population Served
C. Number and Percent of Dropouts Annually Who are Served by Basic Skills
Programs
D. Percent of Students Receiving Financial Aid and Amount of Aid Compared With
Cost of Attendance
E. Percent of Population in Service Area Enrolled
60
ACCESS MEASURE A: Enrollment of High School Dropouts; Handicapped;
Disadvantaged; Single Parents; Nontraditional High
School Diploma Earners; Inmates
Background
The degree to which education is being delivered to the groups that need additional
opportunities is a direct way to measure access. A simple accounting of the numbers of
students with particular characteristics and/ or needs is one such indicator.
Colleges have been required to report in these categories for programs supported by the
Vocational Education Act and enrollees in basic skills programs only. Data for these
programs are collected because of the federal funding of those programs. The data shown
here apply only to the basic skills programs and programs funded by the federal
Vocational Education Act. They do not include all community college students and,
therefore, are not generalizable. Definitions of the categories are given with the data.
It should be noted that before 1989 B 90, students could not be enrolled in basic skills
programs if they already possessed a high school diploma. Therefore, the total enrollment
of these programs could be considered to be high school dropouts. Since the policy
change in 1989 B 90, enrollment numbers of dropouts in basic skills were not consistently
available. In 1991 B 92, the appropriate data elements were added to the Extension
Registration file to identify whether or not a student was a high school dropout. This
information, along with information generated from the Literacy Education Information
System ( LEIS), allows for the reporting of dropouts enrolled in basic skills.
It should also be noted that it is not legal to require students to supply information that
would categorize them ( as handicapped or economically disadvantaged, etc.) though they
may be requested to supply such information. Changes in the magnitude of the data from
year to year might reflect the willingness or unwillingness of students to supply the
information requested.
Implications
Community colleges are serving target groups in basic skills and vocational programs
funded with federal dollars. However, because the data are reported only on those
students who are directly benefiting from the federal funds, the data are not inclusive and
therefore have uncertain value as an indicator for all community college enrollments. As it
is with most student data, these data are self- reported and are subject to the willingness of
students to identify themselves with a particular group, especially for economically
disadvantaged and handicapped. Measure B provides more concrete evidence of the basic
skills programs' service to the target groups.
61
Data
SYSTEM LEVEL ENROLLMENTS IN THE BASIC SKILLS PROGRAM
HIGH SCHOOL DROPOUTS 1993 B 94 104,125
1994 B 95 ( data not available)
1995 B 96 107,386
1996- 97 109,581
1997- 98 111,542
HANDICAPPED 1993 B 94 14,649
1994 B 95 15,358
1995 B 96 14,217
1996- 97 13,980
1997- 98 14,985
MENTALLY RETARDED ADULTS 1993 B 94 7,172
1994 B 95 6,970
1995 B 96 6,687
1996- 97 6,591
1997- 98 6,422
PUBLIC ASSISTANCE RECIPIENTS 1993 B 94 11,889
1994 B 95 12,841
1995 B 96 11,083
1996- 97 10,841
1997- 98 9,975
HOMELESS 1993 B 94 2,326
1994 B 95 2,227
1995 B 96 1,846
1996- 97 1,585
1997- 98 1,425
INMATES 1993 B 94 12,763
1994 B 95 10,670
1995 B 96 10,866
1996- 97 12,195
1997- 98 12,835
62
Definitions
HIGH SCHOOL DROPOUT C A student who leaves a school for any reason except death,
before graduation or completion of a program of study, and without transferring to
another school.
HANDICAPPED C Persons who are sixteen years of age and older with any type of physical
or mental impairment that substantially limits or restricts one or more major life activities,
including walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, learning, and working. This definition
includes adults who are alcohol and drug abusers, mentally retarded, hearing- impaired,
deaf, speech- impaired, visually handicapped, seriously emotionally disturbed,
orthopedically impaired, other health impairments, and adults with specific learning
disabilities.
MENTALLY RETARDED ADULTS C Adults with documented mental retardation who may
benefit from the program. These adults may not have attended public school, attended on
a limited basis, or who simply need additional educational opportunities after leaving
public school.
PUBLIC ASSISTANCE RECIPIENTS C Adults who receive financial assistance from Federal,
State, and/ or local programs, such as Aid For Dependent Children, old- age assistance,
general assistance, and aid to the blind or totally disabled. Social Security recipients
should not be included in this category unless they are receiving old- age assistance.
INMATES C Adults who are inmates in any prison, jail reformatory, work farm, detention
center, or halfway house, community- based rehabilitation center, or any other similar
Federal, State or local institution designed for the confinement or rehabilitation of criminal
offenders.
Source: LEIS data, Planning & Research, NC Community College System Office.
63
SYSTEM LEVEL ENROLLMENTS IN THE VOCATIONAL EDUCATION PROGRAM C
STUDENTS ASSISTED WITH CARL PERKINS FUNDS
DISABLED 1993 B 94 4,208
1994 B 95 4,407
1995 B 96 4,626
1996- 97 4,379
1997- 98 3,813
DISADVANTAGED 1993 B 94 47,436
1994 B 95 51,454
1995 B 96 50,514
1996- 97 51,530
1997- 98 48,989
LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENCY 1993 B 94 1,841
1994 B 95 1,914
1995 B 96 1,769
1996- 97 1,968
1997- 98 982
CORRECTIONS 1993 B 94 3,970
1994 B 95 1,047
1995 B 96 3,464
1996 - 97 3,876
1997- 98 3,665
Definitions
DISABLED C When applied to individuals, means individuals who are mentally retarded,
hard of hearing, deaf, speech or language impaired, visually handicapped, seriously
emotionally disturbed, orthopedically impaired, other health impaired, deaf- blind, multi-handicapped,
or persons with specific learning disabilities, who by reason thereof require
special education and related services, and who because of their handicapping condition,
cannot succeed in the regular vocational education program without special education
assistance.
DISADVANTAGED C Means individuals ( other than handicapped individuals) who have
economic or academic disadvantages and who require special services and assistance to
enable them to succeed in vocational education programs. The term includes individuals
who are members of economically disadvantaged families, migrants, individuals who have
limited English proficiency and individuals who are dropouts from, or who are identified
as potential dropouts from, secondary school.
64
LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENCY C When used with reference to individuals, means
individuals C ( 1) Who were not born in the United States or whose native language is a
language other than English; ( 1. b) Who came from environments where a language other
than English is dominant; or ( 1. c) Who are American Indian and Alaskan Native students
and who come from environments where a language other than English has had a
significant impact on their level of English language proficiency; and ( 2) Who by reason
thereof, have sufficient difficulty speaking, reading, writing, or understanding the English
language to deny those individuals the opportunity to learn successfully in classrooms
where the language of instruction is English or to participate fully in our society.
CORRECTIONS ( CRIMINAL OFFENDER) C Means any individual who is charged with or
convicted of any criminal offense, including a youth offender or a juvenile offender.
Source: Annual Performance Report for the Vocational Education State Administered Program,
NC Community College System Office.
Recommendation
After collecting several years of fairly consistent data, efforts should be make to conduct
more indepth analysis of these data to understand how well they measure the ability of the
colleges to address the needs of the underserved. Where possible, data on the numbers of
people in the target groups within the relevant population should also be shown. It may
be possible to get new census data by zip code so that service areas can be analyzed.
Qualitative studies ( i. e., focus groups) could give a good picture of how target groups are
received on campus and what factors support their success.
65
ACCESS MEASURE B: Number Served by Type Through Basic Skills Programs
and Percent of Target Population Served
Background
The underserved are especially likely to need basic skills programs. This measure is
intended to show to what extent the various types of basic skills programs are providing
services to the undereducated citizens who need them.
Enrollment in basic skills programs is compared to the number in the target group, defined
as the 1,416,966 adult North Carolinians, aged 16 or over, who have completed less than
12 grades of schooling ( for those individuals 16 to 19 there is the additional requirement
that they are not enrolled in school). This definition of the target group is an
underestimate of those who need basic skills programs since it does not include people
who have spent years in school but whose skills do not measure up to the grade level they
completed.
There exist several different reports that present basic skills data on the System. Each
report is developed according to specific guidelines and therefore may report the data
differently. For example, data presented in the Annual Statistical Report now give only
totals for Basic Skills with no “ by program” breakout. Also, the data are unduplicated
using quarterly information submitted by the colleges.
The System data for basic skills enrollment have been revised and are now taken from the
Literacy Education Information System ( LEIS). The System data are now unduplicated
across basic skills categories matching the data on individual institutions that are also
unduplicated and represen